Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands

1928 United States Supreme Court case
Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands
Argued April 10, 1928
Decided May 14, 1928
Full case nameSpringer v. Government of the Philippine Islands
Citations277 U.S. 189 (more)
Holding
The legislative power does not include the power to appoint the agents charged with enforcing the law. Executive powers may not be attached to a legislative office.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr. · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
MajoritySutherland, joined by Taft, Devanter, Butler, Sanford, Stone
DissentHolmes, joined by Brandeis
DissentMcReynolds
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2

Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the Appointments Clause.

Background

The case is an action of quo warranto, on behalf of the Government against Milton E. Springer, Dalamacio Costas, and Anselmo Hilario, the three directors of the National Coal Committee.[1] The Philippine Legislature created a coal company and a bank, and the majority of the stock is owned by the government itself. The company was created through Act No. 2705, and the Governor-General was required to subscribe fifty-one percent of the capital of the corporation. The power to vote on the stock arguably lied in a committee or a Board of control. The board is composed of the Governor-general, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate.[2] Defendants argued that section 4 of Act No. 2705, which was amended by section 2 of Act No. 2822 was invalid. Section 2 of Act No. 2822 stated that voting on behalf of the Philippine Islands is exclusively vested in the committee. The Philippine Legislature passed statute Act No. 2705, which defined the duties of the board of control.

Opinion of the Court

Ultimately, Section 4 of Act No. 2705, amended by Section 2 of Act No. 2822 is invalid. The Philippine Legislature unlawfully determined who of its members sit on the committee, while still legally providing a National Coal Company.[3] Appointments to positions lie in the Executive powers, not the Legislative.

References

  1. ^ "Springer v GPI, 277 US 189 digest - THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiffs, vs. MILTON - Studocu". www.studocu.com. Retrieved February 7, 2023.
  2. ^ "Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928)". Justia Law. Retrieved February 7, 2023.
  3. ^ "Springer v GPI, 277 US 189 digest - THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiffs, vs. MILTON - Studocu". www.studocu.com. Retrieved February 7, 2023.

External links

  • Text of Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928) is available from: Cornell  Justia 
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands ex rel. Agoncillo
  • v
  • t
  • e
United States Appointments Clause case law
Appointment of Officers
Officers vs. Employees
Inferior Officers
Recess Appointments
Challenges to Appointments
Removal of Officers
Jurisdiction stripping
Ratification
  • FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund (1994)


Stub icon

This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

  • v
  • t
  • e