Burdick v. United States | |
---|---|
Argued December 16, 1914 Decided January 25, 1915 | |
Full case name | George Burdick v. United States |
Citations | 236 U.S. 79 ( more ) 35 S. Ct. 267; 59 L. Ed. 476; 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1799 |
Case history | |
Prior | United States v. Burdick, 211 F. 492 (S.D.N.Y. 1914) |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | McKenna, joined by White, Holmes, Day, Hughes, Van Devanter, Lamar, Pitney |
McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79 (1915), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that:
A pardon is an act of grace, proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of the laws, which exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment the law inflicts for a crime he has committed. It is the private though official act of the executive magistrate, delivered to the individual for whose benefit it is intended ... A private deed, not communicated to him, whatever may be its character, whether a pardon or release, is totally unknown and cannot be acted on. [2]
United States v. Wilson (1833) established that it is possible to reject a (conditional) pardon, even for a capital sentence. Burdick affirmed that the same principle extends to unconditional pardons.
The New York Tribune had reported that a person with political connections was smuggling jewels into the United States in order to avoid paying duties. [3] The Wilson administration knew that the leaked information had to have come from the Customs Service, and suspected that it had been obtained by bribery. A federal grand jury subpoenaed testimony from George Burdick, the city editor, and from shipping news editor William L. Curtin. Burdick and Curtin both took the Fifth and refused to reveal the source of the information. In 1914, Woodrow Wilson issued a blanket pardon to the men in a maneuver to force them to testify, because the Fifth Amendment does not apply if the person is immune from prosecution. They refused to accept the pardon or testify. Burdick was fined $500 and jailed until he complied.
Justice Joseph McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court in favor of Burdick. The Court ruled Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon for a number of reasons, including the implicit admission of guilt and possibly objectionable terms contained in a conditional pardon. As Burdick was entitled to reject the pardon, he was also entitled to assert his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment.
Although the Supreme Court's opinion stated that a pardon carries "an imputation of guilt and acceptance of a confession of it," [2] this was part of the Court's dictum for the case. [4] Whether the acceptance of a pardon constitutes an admission of guilt by the recipient is disputed. In Lorance v. Commandant, USDB (2021) the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "there is no confession and Lorance does not otherwise lose his right to petition for habeas corpus relief for his court-martial conviction and sentence. The case was remanded for further action not inconsistent with the court’s opinion." [5]
After President Gerald Ford left the White House in 1977, close friends said that the President privately justified his pardon of Richard Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of the Burdick decision, which stated that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that acceptance carries a confession of guilt. [6] Ford made reference to the Burdick decision in his post-pardon written statement furnished to the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives on October 17, 1974. [7] However, the reference related only to the portion of Burdick that supported the proposition that the Constitution does not limit the pardon power to cases of convicted offenders or even indicted offenders. [7] [8]
In law, a plea is a defendant's response to a criminal charge. A defendant may plead guilty or not guilty. Depending on jurisdiction, additional pleas may be available, including nolo contendere, no case to answer, or an Alford plea.
Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the President of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the President, and establishes the President's powers and responsibilities.
United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case stemming from the American Civil War (1861–1865) where Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase held that a Congressional statute "impairing the effect of a pardon, and thus infringing the constitutional power of the Executive" and was unconstitutional.
Gerald Ford's tenure as the 38th president of the United States began on August 9, 1974, upon the resignation of President Richard Nixon, and ended on January 20, 1977. Ford, a Republican from Michigan, had been appointed vice president on December 6, 1973, following the resignation of Spiro Agnew from that office. Ford was the only person to serve as president without being elected to either the presidency or the vice presidency. His presidency ended following his narrow defeat in the 1976 presidential election to Democrat Jimmy Carter, after a period of 895 days in office. His 895 day presidency remains the shortest of all U.S. presidents who did not die in office.
Three events in American political history have been called a corrupt bargain: the 1824 United States presidential election, the Compromise of 1877, and Gerald Ford's 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon. In all cases, Congress or the President acted against the most clearly defined legal course of action at the time, although in no case were the actions illegal. Two cases involved the resolution of indeterminate or disputed electoral votes from the United States presidential election process, and the third involved the controversial use of a presidential pardon. In all three cases, the president so elevated served a single term, or singular vacancy, and either did not run again or was not reelected when he ran.
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.
A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations. It is derived from the Latin term plenus, 'full'.
Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the use of certain statistical techniques in the United States census does not violate 13 USC §195 or the Census Clause of the Constitution. The case was brought against Donald L. Evans, et al. by the state of Utah; Evans was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce at the time.
In Greece, the Hellenic Court of Audit is the supreme audit institution of the Hellenic Republic, auditing the use of public funds in Greece according to the principles of legality, regularity and sound financial management. Synedrio is also the Supreme Financial Court, one of the three Supreme Courts of Justice, grounded on the Constitution, provides for its jurisdictional, advisory and auditing competences.
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court decision written by Justice Lewis Powell dealing with presidential immunity from civil liability for actions taken while in office. The Court found that a president "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts."
The Gold Clause Cases were a series of actions brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court narrowly upheld the Roosevelt administration's adjustment of the gold standard in response to the Great Depression.
United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. 150 (1833), was a case in the United States in which the defendant, George Wilson, was convicted of robbing the US Mail, and putting the life of the carrier in danger, in Pennsylvania and sentenced to death. Due to his friends' influence, Wilson was pardoned by Andrew Jackson.
Biddle v. Perovich, 274 U.S. 480 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under his power "to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States", the President may commute a sentence of death to life imprisonment without the convict's consent. Burdick v. United States, 236 U.S. 79, limited page 274 U.S. 486. Response to a certificate of questions from the circuit court of appeals, arising upon review of a judgment of the district court in habeas corpus discharging Perovich from the Leavenworth Penitentiary.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.
Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S 425 (1977), is a landmark court case concerning the principle of presidential privilege and whether the public is allowed to view a President's “confidential documents”. The Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1974, ordered that the Administrator of the General Services Administration obtain President Richard Nixon’s presidential papers and tape recordings. In addition, the Act further ordered that government archivists seize these materials. These archivists would preserve the material deemed historic and return to former President Nixon the materials deemed private. Furthermore, this Act stated that material that was preserved could be used in judicial hearings and proceedings. Immediately after this Act was enacted, Richard Nixon filed a lawsuit in a federal district court claiming that the Act violated the principle of separation of powers, the principle of presidential privilege, Nixon's personal privacy, his First Amendment right of association, and further asserted that it amounted to a constitutionally prohibited Bill of Attainder.
Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 454 (1818), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent disclosing an improved method of manufacture by means of several different improved machines should be construed to claim both the method and the improvements to the machines, but not to include the machines apart from the inventor's improvements.
The pardon of Richard Nixon was a presidential proclamation issued by President of the United States Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974, granting a full and unconditional pardon to Richard Nixon, his predecessor, for any crimes that he might have committed against the United States as president. In particular, the pardon covered Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. In a televised broadcast to the nation, Ford, who had succeeded to the presidency upon Nixon's resignation, explained that he felt the pardon was in the best interests of the country and that the Nixon family's situation was "a tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must."
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid the imprisonment at hard labor without a jury trial for noncitizens convicted of illegal entry to or presence in the United States.
The president of the United States is authorized by the U.S. Constitution to grant a pardon for a federal crime. The other forms of the clemency power of the president are commutation of sentence, remission of fine or restitution, and reprieve. A person may decide not to accept a pardon, in which case it does not take effect, according to a Supreme Court majority opinion in Burdick v. United States. In 2021, the 10th Circuit ruled that acceptance of a pardon does not constitute a legal confession of guilt, recognizing the Supreme Court's earlier language as authoritative.