Mississippi vs Johnson 1867 Supreme Court Case

Oyez ^ | 1867 | Supreme Court

[Brookhaven]

Question: Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?

Conclusion: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that it had "no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties...." The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were "in no sense ministerial," and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance." The Court noted that if the President chose to ignore the injunction, the judiciary would be unable to enforce the order.

[Brookhaven]

It was decided by the Supreme Court 150 years ago that a court may NOT issue an injunction against the President preventing him from carrying out his duties.

Here is an AI summary of the case:

In Mississippi v. Johnson (1867), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether a court could issue an injunction against the President of the United States. The state of Mississippi sought to prevent President Andrew Johnson from enforcing the Reconstruction Acts, which it argued were unconstitutional. The Court ruled unanimously that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.

The key reasoning was as follows:

Discretionary vs. Ministerial Duties: The Court distinguished between ministerial duties (simple, non-discretionary tasks required by law) and discretionary duties (actions involving judgment or decision-making). It held that enforcing the Reconstruction Acts was a discretionary duty of the President. Courts cannot interfere with discretionary duties because doing so would violate the separation of powers.

Separation of Powers:

The Court emphasized that enjoining the President would disrupt the balance of power among the branches of government. It stated that while courts could review the constitutionality of laws after their enforcement, they could not prevent the President from executing acts of Congress.

Thus, a court cannot issue an injunction against the President when performing discretionary executive functions. However, this does not preclude judicial review of actions once they are carried out.

Doesn't the President auditing the Treasury Department fall under "discretionary duty" by this definition? Doesn't this make the Judges injunction unconstitutional?

Here is a link to the actual Supreme Court Judgement.

[Regulator]

“in no sense ministerial,”

My attorney father used to tell me that...back in the ‘60s.

He was not a fan of the Warren Court, which he said was engaging in...just what we’re seeing today!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Of course the ruling is unconstitutional. The president is the head of the executive branch and all the agencies created by Congress were put under his control.

[Presbyterian Reporter]

Article 2 Section 3 -— “he (President) shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”

“Take care” are two very powerful words.

[JerseyDvl]

There’s no need for these drastic measures. These are only radical district courts that will be overturned. Patience, like the Teflon Don has shown us in his reaction.
We will win most of these cases as you can already see with changes occurring.

[Ancesthntr]

My question is whether the Department ofJustice, in seeking to overturn this unconstitutional injunction, cited Mississippi v.Johnson?

[Brookhaven]

Trump may have lured them to their own demise.

Once the Supremes issue a ruling (again) that a court may not injunction the president in his duties, it will take away one of the left’s biggest tools.

[Brookhaven]

Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) has not been overturned. The case remains an important precedent in defining the limits of judicial power over the executive branch. Its core principles continue to be cited and applied in modern cases involving presidential powers and the separation of powers doctrine.

The key holdings of Mississippi v. Johnson include:

The President cannot be restrained by injunction from carrying out an act of Congress, even if that act is alleged to be unconstitutional.

The Court distinguished between ministerial and discretionary duties of the President, ruling that discretionary executive functions cannot be subject to judicial interference.

These principles have been reaffirmed and expanded upon in subsequent cases dealing with presidential immunity and the scope of executive power, such as United States v. Nixon (1974), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), and Clinton v. Jones (1997).

While these later cases have further refined the doctrine of executive privilege and presidential immunity, they have not overturned the fundamental principles established in Mississippi v. Johnson.

[logi_cal869]

Plural.

[spintreebob]

“His official duties” is a matter of opinion. And strict constructionists leave a big gap.

[TStro]

DJT should (and hopefully will) ignore these liberal judges
The courts can’t enforce these orders. Dictators in black robes
Time to put them in their place and force them to rule on the constitutionality of laws not their liberal bias
That is what they are SUPPOSED to do

[If You Want It Fixed - Fix It]

Who you vote for matters. Let that sink in. Not just vote agaibst but who you vote FOR. Thet must be trustworthy or your country could be toast.