31:
432:
courts power to ameliorate or avoid particular criminal judgments. It is a check entrusted to the executive for special cases. To exercise it to the extent of destroying the deterrent effect of judicial punishment would be to prevent it; but whoever is to make it useful must have full discretion to exercise it. Our
Constitution confers this discretion on the highest officer in the nation in confidence that he will not abuse it.
437:
It goes without saying that nowhere is there a more earnest will to maintain the independence of federal courts and the preservation of every legitimate safeguard of their effectiveness afforded by the
Constitution than in this court. But the qualified independence which they fortunately enjoy is not
419:
allowed for the discretion of the
President in determining the use of the pardon power insofar as it pertained to criminal contempt. After all, criminal contempt does not require the restraint of a jury, and as such, it is possible that a mistake could creep in. and While a president could pardon all
431:
The administration of justice by the courts is not necessarily always wise or certainly considerate of circumstances which may properly mitigate guilt. To afford a remedy, it has always been thought essential in popular governments, as well as in monarchies, to vest in some other authority than the
339:
and the monarchy of
England, where, he noted, monarchs "had always exercised the power to pardon contempts of court," just like ordinary crimes, and, just as in the United States, civil and criminal contempt existed. A distinction between civil and criminal contempt was made: civil contempt was
360:, Taft then rejected the idea that the offenses covered by the pardon clause extended only to those for which the Congress had defined as crimes, and he instead looked at the plain meaning of the words "offenses against the United States:"
351:, was refined by the Committee on Style, and was ultimately added to the Constitution, as it now stands: "And he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment."
438:
likely to be permanently strengthened by ignoring precedent and practice and minimizing the importance of the co-ordinating checks and balances of the
Constitution. The rule is made absolute and the petitioner is discharged.
420:
criminal contempt, such a thing would be an improbable absurdity. Nevertheless, limits still existed: the pardon can be issued only for contempt that has already occurred, and a capricious
President could face
287:
112:
808:
377:
Taft further determined that the pardon power had been exercised many times with regard to criminal contempt (over 85 years, the pardoning power had been used 27 times) and cited opinions by
412:
720:
480:
72:
404:. The weight of longstanding practice could not be ignored, stated Taft, and served to bolster the argument that the usage of the pardon power was not incorrect.
226:
340:
remedial for the contemnor, and pardons cannot stop it. While criminal contempt is punitive, serving a deterring effect against transgression of court orders.
803:
344:
813:
421:
823:
254:. Grossman had been convicted of criminal contempt but was pardoned by the President. The district court subsequently sent him back to prison.
294:
in
December 1923, on the condition that the fine be paid. Grossman's prison sentence was removed after he paid the fine, and he was released.
378:
35:
685:
Strasser, Mark (March 14, 2003). "The Limits of the
Clemency Power: On Pardons, Retributivists, and the United States Constitution".
540:
411:
and that the usage of the power of pardon here would undermine a functioning judiciary. Cognizant that the
Constitution allowed for
263:
309:
290:. Sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of $ 1,000 (equivalent to $ 17,900 in 2023), he was pardoned by President
304:
Before the
Supreme Court, lawyers for Grossman requested the release of their client. He was opposed by lawyers for the
427:
Nevertheless, in light of the weight of history, precedent, Constitutional function, and justice, Taft concluded:
152:
332:, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected the arguments of the district court and ordered Grossman to be freed.
364:
Nothing in the ordinary meaning of the words 'offenses against the United States' excludes criminal contempts.
356:
184:
776:
282:
on him that forbade him from selling alcohol. Grossman violated the order and was found guilty of criminal
656:"Our Anchor for 225 Years and Counting: The Enduring Significance of the Precise Text of the Constitution"
569:"Chief Justice William Howard Taft's Conception of Judicial Integrity: The Legal History of Tumey v. Ohio"
164:
108:
724:
484:
408:
305:
298:
64:
393:
385:
188:
758:
416:
348:
329:
160:
144:
79:
740:
636:
401:
313:
694:
667:
610:
606:
568:
546:
536:
513:
397:
283:
251:
176:
126:
698:
818:
624:
457:
271:
243:
749:
594:
381:
317:
291:
196:
301:, ordered Grossman back to prison on May 15, 1924 to serve out the rest of his sentence.
731:
590:
172:
767:
487:
797:
785:
389:
655:
501:
275:
247:
67:
312:, who appeared before the Court supporting the President's power to pardon, was
336:
279:
83:
671:
550:
517:
236:
640:
335:
Firstly, examining the history of the pardon power, Taft looked to the
267:
105:
278:, the enforcement mechanism for Prohibition, a judge placed an
30:
531:
Johnson, John W.; Yurs, Dale E.P. (2016). "Calvin Coolidge".
297:
The district court, claiming the pardon would subvert the
627:(2006). "Separation of Powers and the Criminal Law".
533:
The Presidents and the Constitution: a living history
809:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court
220:
209:
204:
133:
119:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
502:"Contempt and Executive Power to Pardon, Part II"
347:and how the pardon clause had originated in the
429:
362:
125:The President has the power to pardon criminal
396:; along with statements by Attorneys General
8:
597:(2006). "The President's Completion Power".
562:
560:
407:Finally, Taft turned to the argument about
20:
535:. New York: NYU Press. pp. 388–389.
343:He next looked at the proceedings of the
308:, who supported the district court. The
469:
320:within a few months of oral argument.
266:, Philip Grossman owned a business in
18:1925 United States Supreme Court case
7:
415:, he determined that the system of
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
804:United States Supreme Court cases
727:87 (1925) is available from:
29:
814:United States clemency case law
824:1925 in United States case law
567:Kastenberg, Joshua E. (2017).
310:United States Attorney General
1:
316:, who would go on to replace
299:independence of the judiciary
654:Kavanaugh, Brett M. (2014).
242:, 267 U.S. 87 (1925), was a
227:U.S. Const. art. II, sct. II
840:
693:. Rochester, NY: 149–151.
345:Constitutional Convention
225:
138:
124:
102:United States v. Grossman
28:
500:Butler, Paul M. (1929).
246:case that held that the
100:Judgment for plaintiff,
54:Ex parte Philip Grossman
605:. Rochester, NY: 2311.
591:Goldsmith, Jack Landman
357:United States v. Hudson
43:Argued December 1, 1924
573:UNM Digital Repository
449:
375:
660:Notre Dame Law Review
506:Notre Dame Law Review
443:William Howard Taft,
409:judicial independence
369:William Howard Taft,
306:Department of Justice
45:Decided March 2, 1925
687:Brandeis Law Journal
413:separation of powers
394:William H. H. Miller
274:. Charged under the
250:may pardon criminal
153:Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
777:Library of Congress
629:Stanford Law Review
417:checks and balances
349:Committee of Detail
330:William Howard Taft
262:During the time of
165:James C. McReynolds
161:Willis Van Devanter
78:45 S. Ct. 332; 169
402:Harry M. Daugherty
314:Harlan Fiske Stone
149:Associate Justices
717:Ex parte Grossman
625:Barkow, Rachel E.
477:Ex parte Grossman
445:Ex parte Grossman
398:Philander C. Knox
379:Attorneys General
371:Ex parte Grossman
284:contempt of court
252:contempt of court
232:
231:
189:Edward T. Sanford
177:George Sutherland
127:contempt of court
24:Ex parte Grossman
831:
790:
784:
781:
775:
772:
766:
763:
757:
754:
748:
745:
739:
736:
730:
703:
702:
682:
676:
675:
651:
645:
644:
621:
615:
614:
599:Yale Law Journal
595:Manning, John F.
587:
581:
580:
564:
555:
554:
528:
522:
521:
497:
491:
474:
458:Ex parte Garland
447:
373:
272:alcoholic drinks
244:US Supreme Court
213:Taft, joined by
134:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
839:
838:
834:
833:
832:
830:
829:
828:
794:
793:
788:
782:
779:
773:
770:
764:
761:
755:
752:
746:
743:
737:
734:
728:
712:
707:
706:
684:
683:
679:
653:
652:
648:
635:(4): 989–1054.
623:
622:
618:
589:
588:
584:
566:
565:
558:
543:
530:
529:
525:
499:
498:
494:
475:
471:
466:
454:
448:
442:
382:Henry D. Gilpin
374:
368:
326:
318:Justice McKenna
292:Calvin Coolidge
260:
197:Harlan F. Stone
187:
175:
163:
145:William H. Taft
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
837:
835:
827:
826:
821:
816:
811:
806:
796:
795:
792:
791:
759:Google Scholar
711:
710:External links
708:
705:
704:
677:
646:
616:
582:
556:
541:
523:
492:
468:
467:
465:
462:
461:
460:
453:
450:
440:
366:
328:Chief Justice
325:
322:
288:district court
259:
256:
230:
229:
223:
222:
218:
217:
211:
207:
206:
202:
201:
200:
199:
173:Louis Brandeis
150:
147:
142:
136:
135:
131:
130:
122:
121:
117:
116:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
836:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
805:
802:
801:
799:
787:
778:
769:
760:
751:
742:
741:CourtListener
733:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
709:
700:
696:
692:
688:
681:
678:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
650:
647:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
620:
617:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
586:
583:
579:(3): 351–352.
578:
574:
570:
563:
561:
557:
552:
548:
544:
542:9781479839902
538:
534:
527:
524:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
496:
493:
489:
486:
482:
478:
473:
470:
463:
459:
456:
455:
451:
446:
439:
435:
433:
428:
425:
423:
418:
414:
410:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:John Y. Mason
387:
383:
380:
372:
365:
361:
359:
358:
354:Referring to
352:
350:
346:
341:
338:
333:
331:
323:
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
300:
295:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
257:
255:
253:
249:
245:
241:
240:
238:
228:
224:
219:
216:
212:
208:
203:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:Pierce Butler
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
148:
146:
143:
141:Chief Justice
140:
139:
137:
132:
128:
123:
118:
114:
110:
107:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
716:
690:
686:
680:
663:
659:
649:
632:
628:
619:
602:
598:
585:
576:
572:
532:
526:
509:
505:
495:
476:
472:
444:
436:
434:
430:
426:
406:
376:
370:
363:
355:
353:
342:
334:
327:
303:
296:
276:Volstead Act
261:
248:US President
235:
234:
233:
221:Laws applied
214:
205:Case opinion
192:
180:
168:
156:
101:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
666:(5): 1912.
490: (1925)
422:impeachment
386:John Nelson
264:Prohibition
798:Categories
786:OpenJurist
464:References
337:common law
280:injunction
270:that sold
258:Background
113:N. D. Ill.
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:527; 1925
672:0745-3515
551:926743500
518:0745-3515
215:unanimous
60:Citations
715:Text of
641:40040287
452:See also
441:—
367:—
324:Decision
239:Grossman
237:Ex parte
210:Majority
819:Pardons
750:Findlaw
732:Cornell
611:2852558
268:Chicago
120:Holding
789:
783:
780:
774:
771:
768:Justia
765:
762:
756:
753:
747:
744:
738:
735:
729:
699:387720
697:
670:
639:
609:
549:
539:
516:
479:,
392:, and
195:
193:·
191:
183:
181:·
179:
171:
169:·
167:
159:
157:·
155:
80:L. Ed.
723:
637:JSTOR
512:(8).
483:
115:1924)
97:Prior
725:U.S.
695:SSRN
668:ISSN
607:SSRN
547:OCLC
537:ISBN
514:ISSN
485:U.S.
400:and
106:F.2d
104:, 1
73:more
65:U.S.
63:267
721:267
603:118
481:267
286:in
109:941
86:359
800::
719:,
691:41
689:.
664:89
662:.
658:.
633:58
631:.
601:.
593:;
577:65
575:.
571:.
559:^
545:.
508:.
504:.
488:87
424:.
388:,
384:,
68:87
701:.
674:.
643:.
613:.
553:.
520:.
510:4
129:.
111:(
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.