United States v. Lovett

328 U.S. 303 (1946)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In 1943, Ps were and had been for several years working for the Government. The agencies which had lawfully employed them were fully satisfied with the quality of their work and wished to keep them employed on their jobs. Congress provided in §304 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943 which stated that after November 15, 1943, no salary or compensation should be paid Ps out of any monies then or thereafter appropriated except for services as jurors or members of the armed forces, unless they were prior to November 15, 1943, again appointed to jobs by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. They did this because Ps were alleged to be loyal to Communists. The President did not reappoint them. But, the agencies kept all of them at work on their jobs for varying periods after November 15, 1943, with no compensation. Ps brought these actions in the Court of Claims alleging that §304 is unconstitutional and void on the grounds that: (1) The section, properly interpreted, shows a congressional purpose to exercise the power to remove executive employees, a power not entrusted to Congress but to the Executive Branch of Government under Article II, §§ 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Constitution; (2) the section violates Article I, § 9, Clause 3, of the Constitution which provides that 'No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed'; (3) the section violates the Fifth Amendment, in that it singles out these three respondents and deprives them of their liberty and property without due process of law. D opposed the suit stating that Congress was exercising its powers over appropriations, which are plenary and not subject to judicial review. D claims there was no justiciable controversy. The Court of Claims ruled for Ps. Some judges were of the opinion that the ACT did not terminate Ps' employment, but only prohibited payment of compensation out of funds generally appropriated. Other thought §304 unconstitutional and void, either as a bill of attainder, an encroachment on exclusive executive authority, or a denial of due process. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.