Summary
Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the US Congress.
| Little v. Barreme | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued December 16, 19, 1801 Decided February 27, 1804 | |
| Full case name | George Little, et al. v. Barreme, et al. |
| Citations | 6 U.S. 170 (more) |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Marshall, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. | |
Summary edit
A Presidential executive order was invalidated because the President was operating outside of his express Congressional authority.
Facts edit
The case derived from "an interesting and revealing incident" that occurred during the "Quasi War" with France at the end of the 18th century.[1] The frigate USS Boston commanded by captain George Little captured a Danish vessel, the Flying Fish, by order of the Secretary of the Navy on behalf of President John Adams "to intercept any suspected American ship sailing to or from a French port."[2] The Congress, however, had passed a law authorizing the navy to seize "vessels or cargoes [that] are apparently, as well as really, American" and "bound or sailing to any [French] port" in an attempt to prevent American vessels transporting goods to France. The Flying Fish was sailing from and not to a French port. Captain Little was declared to be liable for executing a command that was illegal. Little appealed to the Supreme Court, where the decision was upheld. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote "Is the officer who obeys [the President's order] liable for damages sustained by this misconstruction of the act, or will his orders excuse him? ... the instructions cannot change the nature of the transaction, or legalize an act which without those instructions would have been a plain trespass."[3]
Procedural history edit
- District Court, found for Petitioner
- Circuit Court of Massachusetts, reversed, found for Respondent
- United States Supreme Court, affirmed, found for Respondent
Issues edit
- Whether an order of the President, which in effect attempts to make law, can override an act of Congress.
- Officers are responsible for execution of illegal commands, despite nature of military chain of command.
Holding edit
No, an order of the President which is in contradiction with an act of Congress is illegal.
Reasoning edit
The legislative branch makes laws and the executive branch enforces the laws. The Act of Congress provided only for the capture of vessels traveling to France. "The Flying Fish was on a voyage from, not to, a French port, and was, therefore, had she even been an American vessel, not liable to be captured on the high seas." The Act limited the president's authority by only allowing the capture of certain vessels. The President acted contrary to these limitations.
See also edit
References edit
- ^ Woods, Thomas (2005-07-07) Presidential War Powers, LewRockwell.com
- ^ Smith, Jean Edward (1996). John Marshall: Definer of A Nation. New York: Henry Holt and Company. p. 339. ISBN 0-8050-1389-X.
- ^ Blumrosen, Alfred; Blumrosen, Steven (2011). "Restoring the Congressional Duty to Declare War". Rutgers Law Review. 63: 407–519.
Further reading edit
- Glennon, Michael J. (1988). "Two Views of Presidential Foreign Affairs Power: Little v. Barreme or Curtiss-Wright?". Yale Journal of International Law. 13 (5): 5–20. SSRN 2620803.
External links edit
- Text of Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 170 (1804) is available from: Findlaw Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist
- LoveAllPeople.org: "Inherent Presidential Power Is Always Subject To The Inherent Congressional Powers To Make The Laws And Enforce Oversight Of The Executive Branch, Even In Time Of War"