Powell v. McCormack

Supreme Court of the United States · 1969 · Federal Courts
395 U.S. 486 (1969)
Updated
Federal Courtspolitical questionqualificationsArticle I Section 5House qualificationsexclusion vs expulsionjusticiabilitymootness

Facts

Powell was duly elected to the House for the 90th Congress, but the House adopted a resolution preventing him from taking his seat while a Select Committee investigated his eligibility and alleged misconduct. The Select Committee found that Powell met the standing constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency, but it also reported misconduct and recommended that he be seated and then censured, fined, and deprived of seniority. Instead, the House amended the proposed resolution and adopted House Resolution No. 278 excluding Powell and declaring his seat vacant. Powell and some of his voters then sued, alleging that the House could exclude him only if he failed to meet the constitutional qualifications, which the House had expressly found he satisfied.

Issue

Whether the House of Representatives may exclude a duly elected member who satisfies the standing qualifications expressly set forth in the Constitution, and whether that claim is justiciable in federal court rather than barred as a political question or by the Speech or Debate Clause. The Court also considered whether the case had become moot after the 90th Congress ended and Powell was seated in the 91st Congress.

Rule

Article I, Section 5 gives each House authority to judge only the standing qualifications expressly prescribed in the Constitution for its members. A duly elected person who meets those constitutional qualifications may not be excluded by the House; misconduct not amounting to failure of those qualifications must be addressed, if at all, through the House's separate power to punish or expel. A case challenging such an exclusion is justiciable because resolving the scope of the House's Article I, Section 5 power presents a constitutional question for judicial interpretation, and the Speech or Debate Clause does not bar suit against House employees who implement the challenged action.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Nina Torres, age 34, has been a United States citizen for 10 years and lives in New Mexico. After she wins election to the House, the House votes by simple majority not to seat her because members conclude she repeatedly misused money while serving on the Albuquerque city council.

If Torres sues House employees seeking a declaration that the refusal to seat her was unconstitutional, how should a federal court rule on the merits?

Explanation. The majority held that Article I, Section 5 allows the House to judge only the standing qualifications expressly prescribed in the Constitution. If a duly elected member-elect satisfies age, citizenship, and inhabitancy requirements, the House may not exclude her for alleged misconduct. Misconduct may be addressed, if at all, through punishment or expulsion after seating, not by adding new qualifications through exclusion.