Morrison v. Olson
Citation: 487 U.S. 654 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1988)
Facts
The Ethics in Government Act created the office of independent counsel, appointed by a special court (the Division for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels) upon application by the Attorney General. The independent counsel could be removed only by the Attorney General for “good cause.” Alexia Morrison was appointed to investigate Theodore Olson, a Justice Department official. Olson challenged the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute.
Issue
Does the independent counsel statute violate the Appointments Clause or impermissibly infringe upon executive power under Article II by insulating the independent counsel from at-will presidential removal?
Holding
The Supreme Court, 7-1, upheld the independent counsel statute. Chief Justice Rehnquist held that the independent counsel was an “inferior officer” properly appointed by a court, and that the for-cause removal restriction did not so impair the President’s ability to perform his constitutional functions as to violate Article II.
Rule
Congress may provide for the appointment of inferior officers by heads of departments or courts of law without presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. A for-cause removal restriction on an inferior officer is constitutional so long as it does not prevent the President from accomplishing his constitutional responsibilities.
Significance
Morrison v. Olson is the central precedent on the constitutionality of independent agencies and officers insulated from at-will presidential removal. Justice Scalia’s lone dissent — arguing that all federal executive power is vested in the President and that any dilution of removal power is unconstitutional — has grown increasingly influential and is often taught as the foundational statement of the unitary executive theory. The case is in tension with Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, which limited the extension of Morrison’s logic to multi-layer removal protection.