Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

McGrain v. Daugherty

Supreme Court of the United States · 1927 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawCongressional investigationsImplied powersSeparation of powersSenate subpoenacongressional contemptimplied powersnecessary and proper

Facts

The Senate authorized a select committee to investigate alleged failures and misconduct in the administration of the Department of Justice during Harry M. Daugherty's tenure as Attorney General. The committee served Mally S. Daugherty, the Attorney General's brother, with subpoenas to appear and testify; he twice failed to appear and offered no excuse. The Senate then adopted a resolution declaring his testimony material and necessary as a basis for legislative and other action and ordered its Sergeant at Arms to take him into custody and bring him before the bar of the Senate. After the deputy arrested him in Ohio, Daugherty sought habeas corpus and argued that the Senate lacked constitutional power to compel his appearance and testimony.

Issue

Does the Senate have constitutional power, through its own process, to compel a private person to appear and testify when the testimony is needed to aid the exercise of a legislative function? If so, did the Senate's resolutions and proceedings here sufficiently show that the attachment was being used for a legitimate legislative purpose?

Rule

The power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function vested in Congress and therefore is implied by the Constitution. But neither house has a general power to inquire into private affairs; the inquiry must concern a subject on which legislation may be had or another matter within that house's jurisdiction, and the questions must be pertinent to the matter under inquiry.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A Senate committee in Washington, D.C., opens an inquiry into whether the Federal Water Safety Bureau has failed to enforce shipping regulations along the Gulf Coast. The committee subpoenas Lena Ortiz, a private marina operator in Mobile, Alabama, to testify about repeated warnings she gave bureau officials, and she refuses to appear, arguing that the Senate has no constitutional power to compel testimony from private citizens.

Is the committee's compulsory process most likely constitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that each house of Congress has an implied power of inquiry, with process to enforce it, as an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. That power extends to compelling a private individual to appear when the testimony is sought in aid of legislation on a matter within congressional authority. Because the administration and regulation of a federal bureau are subjects on which Congress may legislate, the subpoena is constitutionally supported.