Sources
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a site - Become an editor
Wikipedia. Licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Are you an expert in this subject? Join the discussion and share your knowledge at Wikipedia.org.
Ex parte Garland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Ex parte Garland | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
|||||||||
| Decided December Term, 1866 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| Congress cannot punish a person for crimes committed after receiving a presidential pardon. | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
| Chief Justice: Salmon P. Chase Associate Justices: James Moore Wayne, Samuel Nelson, Robert Cooper Grier, Nathan Clifford, Noah Haynes Swayne, Samuel Freeman Miller, David Davis, Stephen Johnson Field |
|||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||
| Majority by: Field Joined by: Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Clifford Dissent by: Miller Joined by: Chase, Swayne, Davis |
|||||||||
Ex parte Garland, , was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the disbarment of former Confederate officials.
Contents |
In January of 1865 the Congress of the United States passed a law that effectively debarred former members of the Confederate government by requiring a loyalty oath be recited by any Federal court officer affirming that the officer had never served in the Confederate government.
Augustus Hill Garland, an attorney and former Confederate Senator from Arkansas, had previously received a pardon from President Andrew Johnson. Garland came before the court and pleaded that the act of Congress was a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law which unfairly punished him for the crime he had been pardoned for and was therefore unconstitutional.
In a 5-4 vote the Supreme Court ruled that the law was indeed a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law. The court ruled that Garland was beyond the reach of punishment of any kind due to his prior presidential pardon. The court also stated that counselors are officers of the court and not officers of the United States, and that their removal was an exercise of judicial power and not legislative power. The law was struck down, opening the way for former Confederate government officials to return to positions within the federal judiciary.