Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1867-04-19
The Mississippi Injunction CASE Opinion
OF Chief Justice Chase.

The Mississippi Injunction sase--OpiniOn
OF Chief Justice Chase.
Delivered al U'ashiggi6a. -5rril l.. 1856.
: molten was made some days since IN behalf
Of the State Of Mississippi for leave TO file bil
in the name Of the State, praying this court per-
petually 10 enioin and restrain Andrew Johnson,
President Of the United States, and L. o. {.
Ord, General commanding In the district Of
Mississippi and Arkansas, from executing or in
any manner carrying out certain acts Of Con-
gress, commonly known as the Reconstruction
acts. The Attorney General objected 10 the
leave asked for, upon the grounds -rhat no bill
which makes the President a defendant anl
seeks sn Injunction against him TO restrain the
performance Of his duties as President should De
allowed To- he fled IN this cCart. This point
has been fully argued. and we VIII now dispose
Of il. We shall Limit our inquiry to the CUES
ton presented hy the objection. without ex-
pressing any opinion on the broader ISSUES dis
cussei IN argument, whether in any case the
Pres.lcl; Of The Uni;el States may be required,
ly the process Of this court. 70 perform a pure
Is ministerial act required D. .aW. or may be
held ameuab.e in any case. otherwise than ly
Impeachment, i.r cline. Inc single point
which requires consideration i this Can the
Prcsilen; be restrained from carving into effect
al act Of Congress alleged 10 be uncoustitu-
u1nal: 1t is assumed by the counsel for the
State Of Mississippi, that the Pres lent, in the
execution Of the Reconstruction acts, is required
TO perform a mere ministerial duty. In this as
SUMPTION there +, We think, a compJundinS Of
the terms " ministerial and executive"
which are r. 10 means Equivalent in import.
4 ministerial duty, the Performance Of which
may in proper Gases be 20. uirel q the head Of
department ~ judicial process, Il one IN I5s-
poet 90 which nothing IS le.t 60 discretion.
Nery different Is tae duty u the President, in
the exercise u the power 20 see that the laws
are faithfully executed, -al among these laws
tie acts named in TIE bill. BT the frs If these
acts he Is required TO assign generals to COM
mand IL the several military districts, and 10
detail sufficient military force 20 enable such
officers 10 discharge their duties under the law.
By tie supplementary &C; other duties are i'm
posed on the several commanding generals, and
their duties must necessarily be performed IN
der the supervision Of the President, as Com
mauier-In- Chief The duty thus imposed On
the President IS IL 10 just sense ministerial, it
| is purely executive and political. Al attempt
or the part Of the judicial department Of the
/ government 10 eni0!n the Performance Of such
duties by the President might be Justly chsrac-
terizal, II the language @! Chief Justice Mar
l EA4AAt &c az ha-AlA aA4l t-.a-ee.fe NALlAhd a.
/ gance."
/ Il w-s admitted in the argument that the ap-
| plcsticu now made 10 US is without precedent,
/ and this is Of much weight against it. Had u
/ been supposed at the bar that This Court would
| IN any case interp0se TO arrest the execution Of
/ an unconstitutional act O. Congress it can hard
/ y be doubted that applications with that object
| would have been heretofore addressed q IL.
| Occasions have not BEEN uufrequeut The con-
| stituuOnality Of the act for the annexation Of
| Texas Wa yehemently denied. I, made imp0r-
tAut sad permanent changes in the relatiye
! importance Of states and sections and was by
many supposed TO be pregnant with disastrous
results 70 large interests IN particular States /;
| bat 10 one seems 10 have thought Of an appllca-
| ton for al Injunction against the execution q
tue act BY the President; and yet il e Diff
| cult 10 perceive Ip0n what principle the sppli-
cation nov before Us can be allowed and similar
| applications in that and other cases could have
been denied. The fact that no such application
was ever before made in any case IN ics;es the
general judgment Of the profession that no such
! application should be entertained. lt viii hard
/ y be c1nteutCd that Congress can intcrplse IN
! any case 10 restrain the enactment q an uucJn-
sttutional law and yet how can the right %
| Judicial nterpositi0n 10 prevent such an enact
I ment, when the purpose is evident and the exc
| cu'i0n Of that purpose certain, be distinguished
in principle from the right 10 such interpositiou
| against the execution Of such 4 Law by the Pre-
sidentl The Congress is the legislative depart
ment OF the government The President is the
executive department Neither can be
restrained IN us action by the judicial Depart
| ment, through the acts OF both when performed,
are in proper cases subject 60 Its coguizluce.
| The Improperly Of such interference will be
/ clearly seen upon consideration ot its probable
! consequences. Suppose the hll filed, and the
| Injunction prayed for, he allowed. ii the Pres
! ident refuse obedience il is needless 10 observe
| that the Court is without power 90 enforce its
/ process. II. on the other hand, the President
complies with the order Of the Court anl re-
! fuses TO execute the act Of Congress, is 10 not
clear that a collision may 0ccJr between the eZ
ecutiye and legislative departments Of the gov
ernment May not the House of Representatives
impeach the President for such refusal. And IN
that case could this court interICse in behalf Of
the President, thus endangered 10y compliance
with It's mandate, and restrain by injunction the
Senate Of the United States from sitting as a
court Of Impeachment " oulI the strange
spectacle he offered 10 the public wonder Of an
attempt 10y this court TO arrest proceedings IL
that court These questions answer themselves.
II is true that g State may file an original bill
in this court, and it may be true IN some cases
such bin may be fled a.ainst the United States
but We are fully satisfied that this court has no
jurisdiction Of bill to euj5iu the President in
the performance Of his official duties and that 10
such bin ought 70 he received by Us. 4 bill
praying an injunction against the execution Of
an act Of Congress By the incumbent Of the
Presideu tial office cannot he received, whether
it describes him as President OF simply as a cit
izen ola State. The motion l1g leave TO file the
bill is therefore Denied