United States v. Wurzbach
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by RGKMA (talk | contribs) at 15:46, 30 September 2023 (Removed comma(s) before "Jr." as per MOS:JR). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
 | This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "United States v. Wurzbach" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (November 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| United States v. Wurzbach | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 20, 1930 Decided February 24, 1930 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Harry M. Wurzbach |
| Citations | 280 U.S. 396 (more) 50 S.Ct. 167; 74 L. Ed. 508; 1930 U.S. LEXIS 758 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 31 F.2d 774 (W.D. Tex. 1929) |
| Holding | |
| The sixth section of the act of August 15, 1876, is not unconstitutional | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Holmes, joined by unanimous |
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.[1] The Supreme Court reversed the district court, which had quashed an indictment under the Act.
Background
[edit]Harry M. Wurzbach, a member of the US House of Representatives from Texas, was indicted under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act for receiving money from employees of the US government. The District Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas had thrown out the indictment on two grounds:
- The term "political purpose" did not include the behavior in question.
- If the term includes such behavior, the Act was unconstitutional.
Decision
[edit]Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court, which contains just 752 words.
Holmes dismissed almost out of hand the district court's lengthy discussion of the terms and structure of the Act: "This language is perfectly intelligible and clearly embraces the acts charged."[2] The district court had concluded that Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution permits Congress to regulate only the time, place, and manner of elections, and primary elections do not fall under federal control (as per Newberry v. United States).[3][2] Holmes, however, argued that the ability to restrict receipt of funds was not contingent upon when or where the funds were received (primary or general election).[4] Holmes cited Ex parte Curtis.[5][6]
The district court was reversed and the case remanded.
References
[edit]- ^ United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930).
This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
- ^ a b Wurzbach, 280 U.S. at 398.
- ^ Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232 (1921).
- ^ Wurzbach, 280 U.S. at 398-399.
- ^ Ex parte Curtis, 106 U.S. 371 (1882).
- ^ Wurzbach, 280 U.S. at 399.
External links
[edit]- Text of United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396 (1930) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |
- Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government
- Use mdy dates from September 2023
- Articles lacking reliable references from November 2019
- All articles lacking reliable references
- Articles with short description
- Short description matches Wikidata
- All stub articles