United States v. Ballin

Last updated

United States v. Ballin
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 2, 1891
Decided February 29, 1892
Full case nameUnited States v. Ballin, Joseph & Co.
Citations144 U.S. 1 ( more )
12 S. Ct. 507; 36 L. Ed. 321; 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2047
Case history
PriorCollector of New York classified certain imported worsteds as manufactures of wool and assessed duty under 22  Stat.   508 488, 508, c.121; upheld, Board of General Appraisers; reversed, Circuit Court, Southern District of New York (45 F 170 (CCSDNY 1891)).
Holding
When quorum is present, votes of majority of quorum are sufficient to pass a bill.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Melville Fuller
Associate Justices
Stephen J. Field  · John M. Harlan
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Lucius Q. C. Lamar II  · David J. Brewer
Henry B. Brown
Case opinion
MajorityBrewer, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Art. I, §5

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892), is a decision issued on February 29, 1892 by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the constitutional definition of "a quorum to do business" in Congress. [1] Justice David Brewer delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court, analyzing the constitutional limitations on the United States Senate and House of Representatives when determining their rules of proceedings. In particular, the Court held that it fell within the powers of the House and Senate to establish their own rules for verifying whether a majority of their members is present, as required for a quorum under Article I of the Constitution.

Contents

The case was brought after the Board of General Appraisers affirmed the decision of the Collector of New York to classify imported worsted cloth as woolens, thus subjecting them to a higher rate of customs duty. The importers challenged the validity of the law authorizing the duty increase, alleging that a quorum was not present when the law was passed. On appeal, the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York sustained the importers' claim and reversed the Board's decision. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court, which reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and upheld the Board's decision. The decision established unambiguously that when a quorum is present, approval by a majority of that quorum is sufficient for the House or Senate to pass a bill.

Background

In its first 100 years, the United States House of Representatives did not pass legislation unless a full quorum of the House approved the bill. [2] Those present, but not voting, could block votes and prevent a quorum—the technique of the disappearing quorum. The practice was terminated in February 1890, with the adoption of a new set of House rules. In particular, Rule XV (passed on February 14, 1890 [3] ) established that a quorum is satisfied if a majority of members are present, even if they withhold their votes on a particular bill. [2]

On March 1, 1888, the Ways and Means Committee of the House had started review of the McKinley Tariff bill, [4] which would eventually pass the House on May 21, 1890. [5] One part of the bill, drafted by Nelson Dingley, Jr. and known as the Worsted act, would "authorize and direct the Secretary of the Treasury to classify as woolen cloths all imports of worsted cloth," [6] in order to levy a higher rate of customs duty. The Worsted act came up for vote on May 9, 1890, garnering 138 yeas and 3 nays. [7] House Speaker Thomas B. Reed requested a roll call, and 74 representatives were recorded by the clerk in the House Journal as being present and refusing to vote. The speaker concluded that those voting, together with the 74 members withholding their votes (in total more than 166 representatives), constituted a quorum present to do business. [8] The House at the time comprised 330 seats. [9] Since 138 yeas were more than one-half of the members present and voting (141 total voting, 215 total present), the speaker declared that the Worsted act had been passed. [7]

On July 21, 1890, Ballin, Joseph & Co imported into New York certain manufactures of worsted. [10] In line with the Worsted act, the collector assessed the duty rate prescribed at the time for manufactures of wool. The importers contended that the duty collected was in excess of what the law permitted, according to schedule K of 22  Stat.   488, c.121. In their request for refund from the Board of General Appraisers, the importers argued that the Worsted act had been enacted in violation of Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of the United States. In particular, Ballin argued that a quorum of the House had not been present when the vote was taken and therefore the bill had not been legally passed. [11]

On October 13, 1890, the Board ruled against Ballin. Judge Henderson M. Somerville drafted the Board's decision, finding that the act of May 9, 1890, had been constitutionally enacted and that the duty had been correctly assessed by the New York collector. [11] The importers appealed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, which reversed the Board's decision. The circuit court reasoned that the act Congress had passed "expressly confined the exercise of its powers to the Secretary of the Treasury, in exclusion of any other officer" and that the collector had overstepped his bounds. [12]

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 2, 1891, with Attorney General William Miller and Solicitor General William Howard Taft arguing the case for the government. Edwin B. Smith represented Ballin, Joseph & Co. Two questions were presented to the Court: "Was the act of May 9, 1890, legally passed?", and "What was the act's meaning?" On February 29, 1892, the Court issued its unanimous decision, addressing both questions in turn.

The Court started by assuming that information recorded in the House Journal is always accurate. [13] This effectively dismissed any claims based on possible mistakes in the journal. The Court noted that Speaker Reed's actions on May 9, 1890, as recorded in the journal, were in direct compliance with Rule XV; [14] Rule XV had been legally enacted under the Rules of Proceedings Clause of the Constitution. [15] Article I, Section 5, Clause 1, of the Constitution provides that "a majority of each [house] shall constitute a quorum to do business." Rule XV provided the House with a clear method to establish the presence of a quorum. [16]

After determining that a quorum of the House had been present on May 9, 1890, the Court addressed the legality of enacting the Worsted act. The universal default rule of parliamentary bodies is that a majority of the quorum may take action [17] and therefore the power of the house "[arises] when a majority are present." [18] In concluding their analysis of the first question, the Court stated that "a majority shall be a quorum to do business; but a majority of that quorum is sufficient to decide the most important question." [19]

Having established that the Worsted act was legally passed, the Court addressed the second question. The act unambiguously stated that duties on worsted cloths became identical to those placed on woolen cloths by the Tariff Act of 1883. [20] Although no direct action was necessary by the Secretary of the Treasury to put this act into force, the Treasury Department issued a letter on May 13, 1890, instructing all customs officers to publish the act "for the information and guidance of the public." [20]

The judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Reaction

The decision of the Supreme Court came as no surprise in Washington. [21] Even Democrats who had objected to Reed's tactics in the Republican-controlled House [22] as tyrannical, readily admitted that Representatives should participate in the business of the House whenever present. [21] After being congratulated by his colleagues, Reed remarked on how pleased he was by the Court's decision: "That the whole need not participate is settled, their presence being the only essential." [23]

The Spokane Review did not see the news as good, however, proclaiming that czarism had taken over the government: [24] "The supreme court has handed down an infamous decision sustaining the ruling of Speaker Reed that a quorum is a quorum whether some of the members are dumb, deaf, blind or devoid of common sense. It is evident that we [...] will never enjoy perfect happiness until [this country] fills every branch of the public service with filibusterers and equips them with supreme power to block the transaction of business." [24]

Subsequent developments

In their 1995 Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich [25] Bruce Ackerman and 16 other well-known law professors asserted that rules of procedure in Congress that require more than a simple majority of those voting to pass legislation are unconstitutional, in part basing their conclusion on the decision of Ballin. [14] In particular, Ackerman et al. were writing about a rule adopted by the 104th Congress requiring a three-fifths majority to pass an increase in income tax rates. [25] Professors John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport responded in the article The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense [26] by interpreting Ballin as stating that the universal default rule that a majority of the quorum may take action applies only when neither the Constitution nor the legislature imposes a specific rule. [26]

On that topic, the U.S. Mason's Manual notes, "A deliberative body cannot by its own act or rule require a two-thirds vote to take any action where the constitution or controlling authority requires only a majority vote. To require a two-thirds vote, for example, to take any action would be to give to any number more than one-third of the members the power to defeat the action and amount to a delegation of the powers of the body to a minority." [27] The Rules of Proceedings Clause in the Constitution—the organic act under which Congress is assembled [17] —authorizes the houses of Congress to pass a supermajority rule if they so choose. Hence, rules requiring supermajorities are constitutional, but the rules themselves could be changed by a simple majority. [26]

The debate between minority rights and majority rule continues as of 2010, in particular as it relates to filibustering in the United States Senate. [28] [29] If the Senate voted on whether to change the cloture rule, only a simple majority would be needed to change it, though the attempt itself might be filibustered in an effort to prevent the majority from reaching a vote. [26] However, the Senate reinterpreted the rule to require only a simple majority for cloture for nominations (or, more precisely, for confirmation of Presidential nominations) using the nuclear option in 2013 and 2017 and doing so for legislation has been suggested by both President Trump and some senators.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thomas Brackett Reed</span> American politician (1839–1902)

Thomas Brackett Reed Jr. was an American attorney, author, parliamentarian and Republican Party politician from Maine who served as the 32nd Speaker of the United States House of Representatives from 1889 to 1891 and 1895 to 1899. He represented Maine's 1st congressional district in the House from 1877 to 1899 and, prior to his time in Congress, represented Portland in the Maine legislature and served as Attorney General of Maine. In 1876, he was elected to represent Cumberland and York counties in the U.S. House and was re-elected for twelve consecutive terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article One of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding Congress as right

Article One of the Constitution of the United States establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Under Article One, Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Article One grants Congress various enumerated powers and the ability to pass laws "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers. Article One also establishes the procedures for passing a bill and places various limits on the powers of Congress and the states from abusing their powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">McKinley Tariff</span> US law framed by William McKinley in 1890

The Tariff Act of 1890, commonly called the McKinley Tariff, was an act of the United States Congress, framed by then Representative William McKinley, that became law on October 1, 1890. The tariff raised the average duty on imports to almost 50%, an increase designed to protect domestic industries and workers from foreign competition, as promised in the Republican platform. It represented protectionism, a policy supported by Republicans and denounced by Democrats. It was a major topic of fierce debate in the 1890 Congressional elections, which gave a Democratic landslide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cloture</span> Parliamentary procedure forcing a quick end to a debate

Cloture, closure or, informally, a guillotine, is a motion or process in parliamentary procedure aimed at bringing debate to a quick end.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1964 amendment prohibiting poll taxes

The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax. The amendment was proposed by Congress to the states on August 27, 1962, and was ratified by the states on January 23, 1964.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filibuster</span> Political stalling tactic

A filibuster is a political procedure in which one or more members of a legislative body prolong debate on proposed legislation so as to delay or entirely prevent a decision. It is sometimes referred to as "talking a bill to death" or "talking out a bill", and is characterized as a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body.

Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court struck down the income tax imposed by the Wilson–Gorman Tariff Act for being an unapportioned direct tax. The decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows Congress to levy income taxes without apportioning them among the states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quorum</span> Minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly necessary to conduct business

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a group necessary to constitute the group at a meeting. In a deliberative assembly, a quorum is necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons." In contrast, a plenum is a meeting of the full body. A body, or a meeting or vote of it, is quorate if a quorum is present.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reed Smoot</span> American politician

Reed Smoot was an American politician, businessman, and apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A Republican who was first elected to the U.S. Senate by the Utah State Legislature in 1902, he served from 1903 to 1933. Smoot is primarily remembered as the co-sponsor of the 1930 Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, which increased almost 900 American import duties. Criticized at the time as having "intensified nationalism all over the world" by Thomas Lamont of J.P. Morgan & Co., Smoot–Hawley is widely regarded as one of the catalysts for the worsening Great Depression.

In the United States Senate, the nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority, avoiding the two-thirds supermajority normally required to invoke cloture on a measure amending the Standing Rules. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

The Palm Sunday Compromise, formally known as the Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, is an Act of Congress passed on March 21, 2005, to allow the case of Terri Schiavo to be moved into a federal court. The name "Palm Sunday Compromise" was coined by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, referring to it having been passed on Palm Sunday.

The Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution outlines federal legislative procedure by which bills originating in Congress become federal law in the United States.

Advice and consent is an English phrase frequently used in enacting formulae of bills and in other legal or constitutional contexts. It describes either of two situations: where a weak executive branch of a government enacts something previously approved of by the legislative branch or where the legislative branch concurs and approves something previously enacted by a strong executive branch.

The Lodge Bill of 1890, also referred to as the Federal Elections Bill or by critics as the Lodge Force Bill, was a proposed bill to ensure the security of elections for U.S. Representatives.

The Standing Rules of the Senate are the parliamentary procedures adopted by the United States Senate that govern its procedure. The Senate's power to establish rules derives from Article One, Section 5 of the United States Constitution: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings ..."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patricia Millett</span> American federal judge (born 1963)

Patricia Ann Millett is an American lawyer and jurist serving since 2013 as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She formerly headed the Supreme Court practice at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Millett also was a longtime former assistant to the United States Solicitor General and served as an occasional blogger for SCOTUSblog. At the time of her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, she had argued 32 cases before the United States Supreme Court—once the record for a female lawyer. In February 2016, The New York Times identified her as a potential nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Senate</span> Upper house of the US Congress

The United States Senate is the upper chamber of the United States Congress. The United States Senate and the lower chamber of Congress, the United States House of Representatives, comprise the federal bicameral legislature of the United States. Together, the Senate and the House have the authority under Article One of the U.S. Constitution to pass or defeat federal legislation. The Senate has exclusive power to confirm U.S. presidential appointments to high offices, approve or reject treaties, and try cases of impeachment brought by the House. The Senate and the House provide a check and balance on the powers of the executive and judicial branches of government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filibuster in the United States Senate</span> Legislative tactic

A filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to delay or block a vote on a measure by preventing debate on it from ending. The Senate's rules place few restrictions on debate; in general, if no other senator is speaking, a senator who seeks recognition is entitled to speak for as long as they wish. Only when debate concludes can the measure be put to a vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Glossary of American politics</span> List of political jargon and technical terms used in the United States

This glossary of American politics defines terms and phrases used in politics in the United States. The list includes terms specific to U.S. political systems, as well as concepts and ideologies that occur in other political systems but which nonetheless are frequently encountered in American politics.

References

  1. ↑ United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892)
  2. 1 2 Forte, David F. (2005). "Qualifications and Quorum". In Meese, Edwin III (ed.). The Heritage guide to the Constitution. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation. p.  75. ISBN   978-1-59698-001-3.
  3. ↑ House Journal, 230, February 14, 1890, cited in 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892)
  4. ↑ "The tariff bill at last; a beginning in the right direction. How the Democrats of the Ways and Means Committee have performed their difficult task". The New York Times. March 2, 1888. p. 9. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  5. ↑ "The tariff bill passed; sent to the Senate full of absurdities and outrages. Adopted by the House, after a session marked by great disorder, by a vote of 162 to 142". The New York Times. May 22, 1890. p. 1. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  6. ↑ 26  Stat.   105, c.200
  7. 1 2 144 U.S. 1, 1 (1892)
  8. ↑ "Speaker Reed's quorum. The Government's attempt to support his acts. The question comes up in the worsted-duty case—the points brought out in the brief of Attorney General Miller". The New York Times. November 28, 1891. p. 2. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  9. ↑ "The Size of the U.S. House of Representatives and its Constituent State Delegations". Thirty-Thousand.org. Retrieved April 4, 2010. While the 51st Congress would eventually reach 332 seats, the Worsted act was voted on prior to Idaho and Wyoming being admitted to the Union.
  10. ↑ In re Ballin et al., 45 F 170 (CCSDNY 1891), (rev'g the Decision of the Board of United States General Appraisers), rev'd, 144 U.S. 1 (1892).
  11. 1 2 "Reed's ruling sustained. Ex-Judge Somerville on the woolen cloth classification". The New York Times. October 14, 1890. p. 8. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  12. ↑ 45 F 170, 175 (CCSDNY 1891)
  13. ↑ 144 U.S. 1, 4 (1892)
  14. 1 2 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892)
  15. ↑ 144 U.S. 1, 5 (1892). "The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. [...] The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."
  16. ↑ 144 U.S. 1, 5–6 (1892)
  17. 1 2 144 U.S. 1, 6 (1892). "The general rule of all parliamentary bodies is that, when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body [...], except so far as [...] the terms of the organic act under which the body is assembled have prescribed specific limitations. [...] No such limitation is found in the Federal Constitution, and therefore the general law of such bodies obtains."
  18. ↑ 144 U.S. 1, 6 (1892)
  19. ↑ 144 U.S. 1, 8 (1892), quoting State v. Deliesseline,12S.C.L. (1 McCord)52, 56(1821).
  20. 1 2 144 U.S. 1, 11 (1892)
  21. 1 2 "Reed's quorum was valid; little surprise in Washington over the decision. Reasoning of the United States Supreme Court which established the legality of the Worsted act". The New York Times. March 1, 1892. p. 2. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  22. ↑ "Party Divisions of the House of Representatives (1789 to Present)". Office of the Clerk, United States House of Representatives. Retrieved April 4, 2010.
  23. ↑ "It tickles Mr. Reed. The Decision Sustaining His Rulings in the House". Aurora Daily Express. Aurora, Ill. March 2, 1892. p. 3. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  24. 1 2 "Topics of the day". The Spokane Review. March 2, 1892. p. 6. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
  25. 1 2 Ackerman, Bruce; et al. (April 1995). "An Open Letter to Congressman Gingrich". The Yale Law Journal. 104 (6): 1539–1544. doi:10.2307/797138. JSTOR   797138.
  26. 1 2 3 4 McGinnis, John O.; Rappaport, Michael B. (November 1995). "The Constitutionality of Legislative Supermajority Requirements: A Defense". The Yale Law Journal. 105 (2): 483–511. doi:10.2307/797127. JSTOR   797127.
  27. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures (2000). Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, 2000 ed., p. 353
  28. ↑ Court, Jamie (December 16, 2009). "Call To Change Senate's Filibuster Math Grows". The Huffington Post. Retrieved February 7, 2010.
  29. ↑ Lilbourne, John (February 16, 2010). "Filibusters: Let's go back to the good old days". Daily Kos. Retrieved March 18, 2010.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.