| Ex parte Siebold | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided October 1, 1879 | |
| Full case name | Ex parte Siebold |
| Citations | 100U.S.371 (more) |
| Holding | |
| So long as the vesting is consistent with theseparation of powers, Congress has discretion to vest the appointment of aninferior officer in the President, a Department Head, or a Court of Law. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Bradley, joined by Waite, Swayne, Miller, Strong, Hunt, and Harlan |
| Dissent | Field, joined by Clifford |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2 | |
Ex parte Siebold,100 U.S.371 (1879), was aUnited States Supreme Court case concerning theseparation of powers and theAppointments Clause.
Baltimore election officials were indicted under theEnforcement Act of 1870 for stuffing ballot boxes and destroying the votes of African Americans in a congressional election. In defense, they contested Congress' authority under the Appointments Clause to control their work as state officials.[1]
Writing for the majority, Associate JusticeJoseph P. Bradley rejected the officials' claim to independence from federal oversight of their federal elections. Opining that theFifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution authorized the Enforcement Act of 1870, he upheld the act.[1]
TheHarvard Law Review has deemed this case as an exception to theanti-commandeering doctrine expressed inPrintz v. United States (1997), reasoning that it allows the federal government to control state officials and their resources in pursuance of itsElections Clause authority.[2]
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theWaite Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |