The United States Supreme Court upholds the law allowing special prosecutors to investigate suspected crimes by executive branch officials

On June 29, 1988, a pivotal moment in American legal history occurred when the United States Supreme Court upheld the law allowing special prosecutors to investigate suspected crimes by executive branch officials. This landmark ruling affirmed the power and independence of special prosecutors in pursuing justice and holding government officials accountable for their actions.

The case that led to this decision, Morrison v. Olson, involved an attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. The act established a system whereby special prosecutors, known as independent counsels, could be appointed to investigate and prosecute high-level executive branch officials for certain criminal offenses.

The case arose from the investigation into alleged financial improprieties by Theodore Olson, an Assistant Attorney General, who was accused of providing false information to a financial institution. Olson challenged the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, arguing that it violated the separation of powers and encroached upon the President’s exclusive authority to supervise the executive branch.

In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Supreme Court rejected Olson’s arguments and upheld the independent counsel statute as constitutional. The Court acknowledged that the appointment of a special prosecutor did interfere to some extent with the President’s executive power, but it concluded that this interference was justified by the pressing need to investigate and deter high-level executive branch corruption.

The decision emphasized the importance of accountability and the public’s interest in ensuring that government officials, even those in the highest positions of power, were held to the same standards as ordinary citizens. The Court noted that the power of special prosecutors was subject to checks and balances, with the Attorney General having ultimate control and oversight over their actions.

By upholding the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that no one, regardless of their position or influence, was above the law. This ruling provided a valuable tool for investigating and prosecuting government officials who might otherwise have evaded accountability for their actions.

In the years following the Morrison decision, independent counsels were appointed to investigate a range of high-profile cases, including the Iran-Contra affair and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. These investigations demonstrated the effectiveness of the independent counsel statute in ensuring a thorough and impartial examination of potential criminal conduct by executive branch officials.

However, the independent counsel statute was not without its critics. Some argued that it created an unaccountable and unchecked prosecutorial power that could be easily abused for political purposes. These concerns eventually led to the expiration of the independent counsel statute in 1999.

Nonetheless, the Morrison decision remains an important precedent in American legal history. It reaffirmed the principle that the executive branch is not immune from investigation and prosecution, and that special prosecutors play a crucial role in upholding the rule of law.

the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. Olson on June 29, 1988, upheld the law allowing special prosecutors to investigate suspected crimes by executive branch officials. This ruling affirmed the power and independence of special prosecutors in holding government officials accountable for their actions. The decision emphasized the importance of accountability and the public’s interest in ensuring that no one, regardless of their position, is above the law. While the independent counsel statute has since expired, the Morrison decision remains a significant milestone in American legal history and a reminder of the need for checks and balances in government.