Morrison v. Olson

Background

Two House subcommittees subpoenaed internal Environmental Protection Agency documents during oversight. The President ordered the EPA not to disclose some documents and the Justice Department got involved. The House Judiciary Committee later investigated whether Justice Department officials had mishandled the matter and sent a long report asking the Attorney General to seek a court-appointed independent counsel to probe certain Justice Department lawyers. The Attorney General sought appointment for one official, and a Special Division of federal judges appointed an independent counsel who issued subpoenas and began grand-jury work.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether the independent-counsel law violated the Constitution in three ways: who can be appointed, whether judges may have the roles the statute assigns them, and whether the statute unduly limits the President’s control. The majority found the independent counsel is an inferior officer with limited duties and tenure, so courts may appoint such officers. It held the Special Division’s duties fit within constitutional limits and did not improperly exercise judicial power. It also found the Attorney General’s power to request appointment, the "good cause" removal standard, and other safeguards left the Executive enough control to fulfill its duties.

Real world impact

As a practical matter, the ruling allows court-appointed independent prosecutors to investigate and prosecute certain high-level officials. It reduces some direct presidential control over those investigations but leaves the Attorney General and Department policies with meaningful roles. Congress still has oversight tools and can request investigations, but the courts may act in appointing an independent counsel when the Attorney General seeks one.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia dissented vigorously, arguing the statute improperly fragments executive power, places core prosecutorial authority outside presidential control, and risks politicized and unfair investigations.