Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Constitutional Law
separation of powersappointment powerindependent counselunitary executiveAppointments ClauseArticle IIinferior officerprincipal officer
Facts
The Ethics in Government Act authorized a Special Division of the federal court to appoint an independent counsel after an application by the Attorney General. The independent counsel was given authority to investigate and prosecute certain high-ranking government officials and could be removed by the Attorney General only for good cause. The independent counsel's office was limited in jurisdiction and tenure to the matters assigned under the Act. The case challenged whether this structure violated the Appointments Clause and the separation of powers.
Issue
Whether the independent counsel created by the Ethics in Government Act was an inferior officer whose appointment could be vested in a court of law, and whether the Act's limits on removal and grant of prosecutorial authority impermissibly interfered with the President's constitutional functions.
Rule
An officer is an inferior officer when, under the Act at issue, the officer is subject to removal by a higher Executive Branch official, performs limited duties, has limited jurisdiction, and has limited tenure. A restriction permitting removal only for good cause is constitutional if it does not impermissibly burden or interfere with the President's ability to perform his Article II duties and does not unduly trammel executive authority.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress creates a federal "Environmental Fraud Counsel" to investigate alleged falsification of emissions data by senior federal contractors in the Great Lakes region. The counsel may investigate only that category of misconduct, serves only until the assigned matter is completed, and may be removed by the Attorney General for good cause; appointment is vested in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Is the appointment provision most likely constitutional?
Explanation. The majority held that Congress may vest appointment of an inferior officer in a court of law. The relevant factors supporting inferior-officer status are that the officer is removable by a higher Executive Branch official, performs limited duties, has limited jurisdiction, and has limited tenure. Those features are all present here, so the appointment provision is likely valid.