Question: The Special Division was upheld in a case that decided which act was Constitutional?

full_context: Document 1: Morrison v. Olson: Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) , is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional.
Document 2: Special Division: The Special Division is a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 49 (1982 ed., Supp. V) (Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act). It consists of three circuit court judges or justices appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. One of the judges must be a judge of the DC Circuit, and no two of the judges may be named to the Special Division from a particular court. The judges are appointed for 2-year terms, with any vacancy being filled only for the remainder of the 2-year period. Its constitutionality was upheld in Morrison v. Olson.
Document 3: Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands: The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands is the highest court in the territory of the United States Virgin Islands. The Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction over all appeals from the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, a trial level court, on January 29, 2007. There are three Supreme Court justices who are each appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Legislature for a ten-year term. Appointments are for life. The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and two Associate Justices. There is no intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court does not have discretion in hearing appeals. Appeals of Supreme Court decisions were heard by writ of certiorari by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit until December 29, 2012, but since then they have been heard by the United States Supreme Court.
Document 4: New Jersey Superior Court: The Superior Court is the state court in the U.S. state of New Jersey, with statewide trial and appellate jurisdiction. The New Jersey Constitution of 1947 establishes the power of the New Jersey courts. Under the State Constitution, "'judicial power shall be vested in a Supreme Court, a Superior Court, County Courts and inferior courts of limited jurisdiction.'" The Superior Court has three divisions: the Appellate Division is essentially an intermediate appellate court while the Law and Chancery Divisions function as trial courts. The State Constitution renders the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division the intermediate appellate court, and "[a]ppeals may be taken to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court from the law and chancery divisions of the Superior Court and in such other causes as may be provided by law." Each division is in turn divided into various parts. "The trial divisions of the Superior Court are the principal trial courts of New Jersey. They are located within the State's various judicial geographic units, called 'vicinages,' R. 1:33-2(a), and are organized into two basic divisions: the Chancery Division and the Law Division".
Document 5: Gravel v. United States: Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.
Document 6: Supreme Court Police: The Supreme Court of the United States Police is a small U.S. federal law enforcement agency headquartered in the District of Columbia, whose mission is to ensure the integrity of the constitutional mission of the U.S. Supreme Court by protecting the Supreme Court building, the Justices, employees, guests, and visitors. In accordance with , the Supreme Court Police falls under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of the United States Supreme Court who is appointed by the Supreme Court. The Marshal and the Supreme Court Police are authorized by to police the Supreme Court Building and protect the Justices, employees of the Court, and visitors to the Court.
Document 7: United States v. Kagama: United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375 (1886), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Major Crimes Act of 1885. This Congressional act gave the federal courts jurisdiction in certain cases of Indian-on-Indian crimes, even if the crimes were committed on an Indian reservation. Kagama, a Yurok Native American (Indian) accused of murder, was selected as a test case by the Department of Justice to test the constitutionality of the Act.
Document 8: Marsh v. Chambers: Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), was a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer.
Document 9: Judiciary of the Bahamas: The basis of the Bahamian Law and legal system lies within the English Common Law tradition. Justices of the Supreme Court, Registrars and Magistrates are all appointed by The Governor-General acting on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission, which is composed of five individuals who are headed by the Chief Justice as their chairman. The Chief Justice and the Justices of the Court of Appeal, including the President, are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Once appointed, the salaries and other terms of appointment of the Chief Justice, Justices of Appeal and Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be altered to their disadvantage. Justices of the Supreme Court can serve until the age of 65 years and, where agreed among the judge, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may serve until the age of 67. Justices of Appeal can serve until the age of 68 years and, where agreed among the judge, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may serve until the age of 70 years. The law of The Bahamas makes provisions for the appointment of 12 Justices to the Bench of the Supreme Court, inclusive of the Chief Justice, and for five Justices of the Court of Appeal, inclusive of the President. The Chief Justice, as Head of the Judiciary, is an ex officio member of the Court of Appeal, but only sits at the invitation of the President.
Document 10: Judicial system of Singapore: The full Judicial power in Singapore is vested in the Supreme Court as well as subordinate courts by the Constitution of Singapore. The Supreme Court consists of the Court of Appeal and the High Court. The Court of Appeal exercises appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction, while the High Court exercises both original and appellate criminal and civil jurisdiction. The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judicial Commissioners and High Court Judges are appointed by the President from candidates recommended by the Prime Minister. The prime minister must consult with the Chief Justice before recommending the judges. The current Chief Justice is Sundaresh Menon.
Document 11: Murray v. United States: Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court decision that created the modern "independent source doctrine" exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule makes most evidence gathered through violations of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution inadmissible in criminal trials as "fruit of the poisonous tree". In "Murray", the Court ruled that when officers conduct two searches, the first unlawful and the second lawful, evidence seized during the second search is admissible if the second search "is genuinely independent of [the] earlier one."
Document 12: Supreme Court of Nepal: The Supreme Court is composed of the Chief Justice, twenty Justices. The Chief Justice is appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Constitutional Council. S/he is appointed from among the justices having at least three years as a Supreme Court justice. Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of Nepal on the recommendation of the Judicial Council. The Chief Justice and the justices of the Supreme Court have to be confirmed by the Parliamentary Hearing Committee before they can be appointed by the President. The administrative head of the Supreme Court is the Chief Registrar. In addition to the Chief Registrar, one Registrar and four Joint-Registrar are appointed to led different departments of the Supreme Court and offer administrative assistance to the Court. Officers of the Supreme Court are appointed by Government of Nepal under the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission.
Document 13: Moral Constitution: The Moral Constitution is a means of understanding the U.S. Constitution which emphasizes a fusion of moral philosophy and constitutional law. The most prominent proponent is Ronald Dworkin, who advances the view in "Law's Empire" and "Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution". Alternatively, it can be taken to mean a constitution that defines the fundamental political principles and establishes the power and duties of each government, and does so while being consistent with a moral code. The moral code can take any of the same forms as the constitution itself: written, unwritten, codified, uncodified, etc. Former Chief Justice of Indonesian Constitutional Court, Jimly Asshiddiqie, also wrote his book on "The Court of Ethics and Constitutional Ethics" (2014) advocating a new perspective on the 'rule of ethics' besides the doctrine of the 'rule of law'.
Document 14: McNally v. United States: McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that the federal statute criminalizing mail fraud applied only to the schemes and artifices defrauding victims of money or property, as opposed to those defrauding citizens of their rights to good government. The case was superseded one year later when the United States Congress amended the law to specifically include honest services fraud in the mail and wire fraud statutes.
Document 15: R v Hauser: R v Hauser, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 984 is a leading constitutional decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, where, In a four to three decision, the Court upheld the federal Narcotic Control Act as constitutional under the peace, order and good government power. This case is particularly unusual as the Act had previously held to be constitutional under the Criminal law power in the decision of "Industrial Acceptance Corp. v. The Queen" [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273.
ground_truth: Independent Counsel Act