McGrain v. Daugherty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
McGrain v. Daugherty
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 5, 1924
Decided January 17, 1927
Full case name McGrain v. Daugherty
Citations 273 U.S. 135 (more)
Holding
The Constitution grants Congress auxiliary powers to carry out its duties. As congressional investigations have a legislative purpose, Congress has the power to make inquiries and to compel information when it is necessary and proper to execute Congress' authority under the Constitution.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Van Devanter, joined by Brandeis, Butler, Holmes, McReynolds, Sanford, Sutherland, Taft

Stone did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I

McGrain v. Daugherty was a case heard before the Supreme Court, decided January 17, 1927. It was a challenge to Mally Daugherty's contempt conviction, which he received when he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating Attorney General Harry Daugherty's failure to investigate the perpetrators of the Teapot Dome Scandal. The Court upheld his conviction.[1]

In the case, the Supreme Court held for the first time that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witness and testimony.[1]

Background[edit]

Investigations in 1922 for the Teapot Dome scandal began in the Department of the Interior, but when questions regarding the Justice Department were raised Congress took control and led further investigation. Implications that Harry M. Daugherty was involved were raised due to his lack of involvement in investigation. Mally S. Daugherty, brother to Harry, was called into question and asked to produce related documents by a Senate committee. Upon Harry's resignation and increased suspicion resulting, Mally was arrested. At this point Mally challenged the committee's authority to act and arrest a civilian in order to acquire evidence.[2]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b "McGrain v. Daugherty". Oyez.org. Retrieved 2 November 2010. 
  2. ^ Walker and Epstein, Lee and Thomas G. (2011). Institutional Powers and Constraints. Washington DC: CQ Press. p. 153. ISBN 9781604265163. 

External links[edit]