Ex parte Siebold

Last updated
Ex parte Siebold
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Decided October 1, 1879
Full case nameEx parte Siebold
Citations100 U.S. 371 ( more )
Holding
So long as the vesting is consistent with the separation of powers, Congress has discretion to vest the appointment of an inferior officer in the President, a Department Head, or a Court of Law.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford  · Noah H. Swayne
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
William Strong  · Joseph P. Bradley
Ward Hunt  · John M. Harlan
Case opinions
MajorityBradley, joined by Waite, Swayne, Miller, Strong, Hunt, and Harlan
DissentField, joined by Clifford
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.

Related Research Articles

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that the use of military tribunals to try civilians when civil courts are operating is unconstitutional. In this particular case, the Court was unwilling to give President Abraham Lincoln's administration the power of military commission jurisdiction, part of the administration's controversial plan to deal with Union dissenters during the American Civil War. Justice David Davis, who delivered the majority opinion, stated that "martial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and confined martial law to areas of "military operations, where war really prevails", and when it was a necessity to provide a substitute for a civil authority that had been overthrown. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase and three associate justices filed a separate opinion concurring with the majority in the judgment, but asserting that Congress had the power to authorize a military commission, although it had not done so in Milligan's case.

Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 333 (1866), was an important United States Supreme Court case involving the disbarment of former Confederate officials.

Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869), is a United States Supreme Court decision that examines the extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review decisions of lower courts under federal statutory law.

In law, ex parte is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of", thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African, Indian, and U.S. legal doctrines, ex parte means a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party.

Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Bollman held that the constitutional definition of treason excluded mere conspiracy to levy war against the United States.

Ex parte Mitsuye Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision handed down on December 18, 1944, in which the Justices unanimously ruled that the U.S. government could not continue to detain a citizen who was "concededly loyal" to the United States. Although the Court did not touch on the constitutionality of the exclusion of people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast, which it had found not to violate citizen rights in its Korematsu v. United States decision on the same date, the Endo ruling nonetheless led to the reopening of the West Coast to Japanese Americans after their incarceration in camps across the U.S. interior during World War II.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Ex parte Yerger, 75 U.S. 85 (1869), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the court held that, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, it is authorized to issue writs of habeas corpus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Hanna (Indiana politician)</span> American politician and lawyer (1827–1882)

John Hanna was a United States Representative and United States Attorney from Indiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alexander Rives</span> American judge

Alexander Rives was a Virginia attorney, politician and plantation owner. He served in both houses of the Virginia General Assembly, as a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia and as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia.

Ex parte Bigelow, 113 U.S. 328 (1885), was an application for a writ of habeas corpus to release the petitioner from imprisonment in the District of Columbia jail where he was held, as he alleges, unlawfully by John S. Crocker, the warden of the jail. He presents with the petition the record of his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of the District to imprisonment for five years under an indictment for embezzlement, and this record and the petition of the applicant present all that could be brought before the court on a return to the writ, if one were awarded.

Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887), was a United States Supreme Court case involving grand jury indictments.

Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882), is an 8–1 ruling by the United States Supreme Court that the Act of August 15, 1876 was a constitutional exercise of the enumerated powers of the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930), is a unanimous ruling by the US Supreme Court that the term "political purpose," as used in the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, was not impermissibly vague. The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Waite Court</span>

During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases. In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice. Notable cases include United States v. Cruikshank (1875), United States v. Reese (1875), Reynolds v. United States (1878), Wilkerson v. Utah (1879), the Trade-Mark Cases (1879), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), Pace v. Alabama (1883), United States v. Harris (1883), Ex parte Crow Dog (1883), Hurtado v. California (1884), Clawson v. United States (1885), Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), United States v. Kagama (1886), Ker v. Illinois (1886), and Mugler v. Kansas (1887).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flora Japonica (1834 book)</span>

Flora Japonica is a Flora written in Leyden by Bavarian botanist and traveler Philipp Franz von Siebold in collaboration with fellow Bavarian Joseph Gerhard Zuccarini. The work, written in Latin, carries the full title of Flora Japonica; sive, Plantae Quas in Imperio Japonico Collegit, Descripsit, ex Parte in Ipsis Locis Pingendas Curavit..

Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1878), was a United States Supreme Court ex parte decision. The case decided that the United States Post Office may open and inspect mail to limit the transmission of circulars on lotteries. It also extended Fourth Amendment protections to private letters, holding that letters and sealed packages sent through the mail required warrants to be searched through.

Ex Parte Hennen, 38 U.S. 225 (1839), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the removal power under the Appointments Clause.

References