Powell v. Cormack

Decision Date16 June 1969
Docket NumberNo. 138,138
Citation23 L.Ed.2d 491,395 U.S. 486,89 S.Ct. 1944
PartiesAdam Clayton POWELL, Jr., et al., Petitioners, v. John W. McCORMACK et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Arthur Kinoy, New York City, and Herbert O. Reid, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Bruce Bromley, New York City, for respondents.

Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

In November 1966, petitioner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected from the 18th Congressional District of New York to serve in the United States House of Representatives for the 90th Congress. However, pursuant to a House resolution, he was not permitted to take his seat. Powell (and some of the voters of his district) then filed suit in Federal District Court, claiming that the House could exclude him only if it found he failed to meet the standing requirements of age, citizenship, and residence contained in Art. I, § 2, of the Constitution—requirements the House specifically found Powell met—and thus had excluded him unconstitutionally. The District Court dismissed petitioners' complaint 'for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.' A panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, althougho n somewhat different grounds, each judge filing a separate opinion. We have determined that it was error to dismiss the complaint and that petitioner Powell is entitled to a declaratory judgment that he was unlawfully excluded from the 90th Congress.

I.

FACTS.

During the 89th Congress, a Special Subcommittee on Contracts of the Committee on House Administration conducted an investigation into the expenditures of the Committee on Education and Labor, of which petitioner Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was chairman. The Special Subcommittee issued a report concluding that Powell and certain staff employees had deceived the House authorities as to travel expenses. The report also indicated there was strong evidence that certain illegal salary payments had been made to Powell's wife at his direction. See H.R. Rep. No. 2349, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 6—7 (1966). No formal action was taken during the 89th Congress. However, prior to the organization of the 90th Congress, the Democratic members-elect met in caucus and voted to remove Powell as chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor. See H.R. Rep. No. 27 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 1—2 (1967).

When the 90th Congress met to organize in January 1967, Powell was asked to step aside while the oath was administered to the other members-elect. Following the administration of the oath to the remaining members, the House discussed the procedure to be followed in determining whether Powell was eligible to take his seat. After some debate, by a vote of 363 to 65 the House adopted House Resolution No. 1, which provided that the Speaker appoint a Select Committee to determine Powell's eligibility. 113 Cong. Rec. 26—27. Although the resolution prohibited Powell from taking his seat until the House acted on the Select Committee's report, it did provide that he should receive all the pay and allowances due a member during the period.

The Select Committee, composed of nine lawyer-members, issued an invitation to Powell to testify before the Committee. The invitation letter stated that the scope of the testimony and investigation would include Powell's qualifications as to age, citizenship, and residency; his involvement in a civil suit (in which he had been held in contempt); and '(m)atters of * * * alleged official misconduct since January 3, 1961.' See Hearings on H.R. Res. No. 1 before Select Committee Pursuant to H.R. Res. No. 1, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1967) (hereinafter Hearings). Powell appeared at the Committee hearing held on February 8, 1967. After the Committee denied in part Powell's request that certain adversary-type procedures be followed,1 Powell testified. He would, however, give information relating only to his age, citizenship, and residency; upon the advice of counsel, he refused to answer other questions.

On February 10, 1967, the Select Committee issued another invitation to Powell. In the letter, the Select Committee informed Powell that its responsibility under the House Resolution extended to determining not only whether he met the standing qualifications of Art. I, § 2, but also to 'inquir(ing) into the question of whethr you should be punished or expelled pursuant to the powers granted * * * the House under Article I, Section 5, * * * of the Constitution. In other words, the Select Committee is of the opinion that at the conclusion of the present inquiry, it has authority to report back to the House recommendations with respect to * * * seating, expulsion or other punishment.' See Hearings 110. Powell did not appear at the next hearing, held February 14, 1967. However, his attorneys were present, and they informed the Committee that Powell would not testify about matters other than his eligibility under the standing qualifications of Art. I, § 2. Powell's attorneys reasserted Powell's contention that the standing qualifications were the exclusive requirements for membership, and they further urged that punishment or expulsion was not possible until a member had been seated. See Hearings 111—113.

The Committee held one further hearing at which neither Powell nor his attorneys were present. Then, on February 23, 1967, the Committee issued its report, finding that Powell met the standing qualifications of Art. I, § 2. H.R.Rep. No. 27, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 31 (1967). However, the Committee further reported that Powell had asserted an unwarranted privilege and immunity from the processes of the courts of New York; that he had wrongfully diverted House funds for the use of others and himself; and that he had made false reports on expenditures of foreign currency to the Committee on House Administration. Id., at 31—32. The Committee recommended that Powell be sworn and seated as a member of the 90th Congress but that he be censured by the House, fined $40,000 and be deprived of his seniority. Id., at 33.

The report was presented to the House on March 1, 1967, and the House debated the Select Committee's proposed resolution. At the conclusion of the debate, by a vote of 222 of 202 the House rejected a motion to bring the resolution to a vote. An amendment to the resolution was then offered; it called for the exclusion of Powell and a declaration that his seat was vacant. The Speaker ruled that a majority vote of the House would be sufficient to pass the resolution if it were so amended 113 Cong.Rec. 5020. After further debate, the amendment was adopted by a vote of 248 to 176. Then the House adopted by a vote of 307 to 116 House Resolution No. 278 in its amended form, thereby excluding Powell and directing that the Speaker notify the Governor of New York that the seat was vacant.

Powell and 13 voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York subsequently instituted this suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Five members of the House of Representatives were named as defendants individually and 'as representatives of a class of citizens who are presently serving * * * as members of the House of Representatives.' John W. McCormack was named in his official capacity as Speaker, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and the Doorkeeper were named individually and in their official capacities. The complaint alleged that House Resolution No. 278 violated the Constitution, specifically Art. I, § 2, cl. 1, because the resolution was inconsistent with the mandate that the members of the House shall be elected by the people of each State, and Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, which, petitioners alleged, sets forth the exclusive qualifications for membership.2 The complaint further alleged that the Clerk of the House threatened to refuse to perform the service for Powell to which a duly elected Congressman is entitled, that the Sergeant at Arms refused to pay Powell his salary, and that the Doorkeeper threatened to deny Powell admission to the House chamber.

Petitioners asked that the three-judge court be convened.3 Further, they requested that the District Court grant a permanent injunction restraining respondents from executing the House Resolution, and enjoining the Speaker from refusing to administer the oath, the Clerk from refusing to perform the duties due a Representative, the Sergeant at Arms from refusing to pay Powell his salary, and the Doorkeeper from refusing to admit Powell to the Chamber.4 The complaint also requested a declaratory judgment that Powell's exclusion was unconstitutional.

The District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint 'for want of jurisdiction of the subject matter.' Powell v. McCormack, 266 F. Supp. 354 (D.C.D.C.1967).5 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed on somewhat different grounds, with each judge of the panel filing a separate opinion. Powell v. McCormack, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 354, 395 F.2d 577 (1968). We granted certiorari. 393 U.S. 949, 89 S.Ct. 371, 21 L.Ed.2d 361 (1968). While the case was pending on our docket, the 90th Congress officially terminated and the 91st Congress was seated. In November 1968, Powell was again elected as the representative of the 18th Congressional District of New York, and he was seated by the 91st Congress. The resolution seating Powell also fined him $25,000. See H.R.Res. No. 2, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 15 Cong.Rec. H21 (daily ed., January 3, 1969). Respondents then filed a suggestion of mootness. We postponed further consideration of this suggestion to a hearing on the merits. 393 U.S. 1060, 89 S.Ct. 713, 21 L.Ed.2d 704 (1969).

Respondents press upon us a variety of arguments to support the court below; they will be considered in the following order. (1) Events occurring subsequent to the grant of certiorari have rendered this litigation moot. (2) The Speech or Debate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2935 cases
  • McKinney v. United States Dept. of Treasury
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of International Trade
    • July 23, 1985
    ...presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 1951, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). The Secretary's decision in January 1985, that there was no basis to prohibit the entry of Soviet goods under......
  • Messier v. Southbury Training School
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 5, 2008
    ...because these claims are moot since the plaintiffs have achieved everything for which they ask. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 495-96, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969) (noting that a court should find as moot claims in which the relief sought had already been obtained); Martin-T......
  • Aiken v. Obledo
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • November 2, 1977
    ...presented are no longer `live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. . . ." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). Now that the revised regulations have been rescinded, the Plaintiffs and Intervenors are without any "legally cogn......
  • Doe v. Pittsylvania Cnty., Va.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • February 3, 2012
    ...L.Ed.2d 507 (1972); Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606, 624–25, 92 S.Ct. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 503, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969); United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 178, 86 S.Ct. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Second Circuit Requires Court Approval Of All FLSA Settlements
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • August 20, 2015
    ...to continue to oversee the matter as it would seem that upon settlement no case or controversy exists. SeePowell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (When the issues in dispute between the parties "are no longer 'live,'" a case becomes moot and the federal court lacks jurisdiction);Lillb......
  • Motion To Dismiss: When An Amended Complaint Might Not Moot What You Think
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 15, 2024
    ...controversies that "are no longer 'live' or [where] the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 This article explores different approaches circuit courts have taken to address the effects of an amended complaint, filed in accordance......
52 books & journal articles
  • Sovereign Immunity and the Uses of History
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 81, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...like the political question doctrine, has no applicability to the federal judiciary's relationship to the States."); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 517-22 (1969) (reiterating that the political question doctrine arises from separation of powers concerns). This conclusion has been critic......
  • The Ideology of Supreme Court Opinions and Citations
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-3, March 2012
    • March 1, 2012
    ...394 U.S. 526 (1969) Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) Gaston Cnty. v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969) Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969) Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) Williams v. Florida, ......
  • Mootness and citizen suit civil penalty claims under the Clean Water Act: a post-Lujan reassessment.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 25 No. 3, June 1995
    • June 22, 1995
    ...208-37 (1962). (22) Flast, 392 U.S. at 95. (23) See, e.g., Franks v. Bowman Trans. Co., 424 U.S. 747, 753 n.5 (1976); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969); Baker, 369 U.S. at 204. (24) United States parole Comm'n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980). (25) Gwaltney I, 484 U.S. 49, ......
  • Pronouncements of the U.s. Supreme Court Relating to the Criminal Law Field: 1981-1982
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Lawyer No. 11-9, September 1982
    • Invalid date
    ...claim to pretrial bail became moot following his convictions in state court. Applying the general rule from Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), that a case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Hunt ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT