Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Kilbourn v. Thompson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1881 United States Supreme Court case
Kilbourn v. Thompson
Decided February 28, 1881
Full case nameHallet Kilbourn v. John G. Thompson, et al.
Citations103U.S.168 (more)
26L. Ed. 377
Holding
The plea set up by those of the defendants who were members of the House is a good defence, and the judgment of the court overruling the demurrer to it and giving judgment for those defendants will be affirmed. As to Thompson, the judgment reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford · Samuel F. Miller
Stephen J. Field · Joseph P. Bradley
Ward Hunt · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods
Case opinion
MajorityMiller, joined byunanimous

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), was aUnited States Supreme Court case that dealt with the question whether or not theUnited States House of Representatives maycompeltestimony.

Hallet Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before a Special Committee established by the House of Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy ofJay Cooke & Company. Though he appeared, he refused to answer any questions and did not tender requested documents. John G. Thompson,Sergeant-At-Arms for the House, took Kilbourn into custody. Kilbourn continued to refuse to testify and provided no explanation for his refusal. The House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agreed to testify and produce the requested documents. The Court found that the House did not have the power to punish for contempt. However, House members could not be sued forfalse imprisonment as they were exercising their official duties and protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, Art. I, § 6, cl. 1. In addition the Supreme Court established several limits in the scope of investigations, called the "Kilbourn Test".

The Kilbourn Test

[edit]
  • (1) Inquiries must not "invade areas constitutionally reserved to the courts or the executive"
  • (2) Inquiries must deal "with subjects on which Congress could validly legislate"
  • (3) The resolution authorizing the investigation must specify " a congressional interest in legislating on that subject."
  • (4) Where the inquiry can result in "no valid legislation," then the "Private affairs of individuals" are not valid targets for inquiry

See also

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]

External links

[edit]
Presentment Clause of Section VII
Commerce Clause of Section VIII
Dormant Commerce Clause
Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914
Lanham Act
Othertrademark cases
Others
Coinage Clause of Section VIII
Legal Tender Cases
Copyright Clause of Section VIII
Copyright Act of 1790
Patent Act of 1793
Patent infringement case law
Patentability case law
Copyright Act of 1831
Copyright Act of 1870
Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890
International Copyright Act of 1891
Copyright Act of 1909
Patent misuse case law
Copyright Act of 1976
Othercopyright cases
Otherpatent cases
Legal Tender Cases
Others
Compact Clause of Section X
Membership
Members
Senate
House
Leaders
Senate
House
Districts
Groups
Congressional caucus
Ethnic and racial
Gender and sexual identity
Occupation
Religion
Related
Powers, privileges, procedure, committees, history, media
Powers
Privileges
Procedure
Senate-specific
Committees
Items
History
Media
Legislative
offices
Offices
Senate
House
Employees
Senate
House
Library of
Congress
Gov.
Publishing Office
Capitol Building
Office
buildings
Senate
House
Other
facilities
Related
Stub icon

This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theWaite Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kilbourn_v._Thompson&oldid=1311207768"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp