Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Newberry v. United States
 | |
| Newberry v. United States | |
| Term: 1921 | |
| Court: Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Important dates | |
| Argument: January 7 and 10, 1921 Decided: May 2, 1921 | |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice Edward D. White • Joseph McKenna • Oliver W. Holmes, Jr. • William R. Day • Willis Van Devanter • Mahlon Pitney • James C. McReynolds • Louis Brandeis • John H. Clarke | |
Newberry v. United States was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1921. The case was brought by Thomas Newberry, who had been convicted of violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which established expenditure limits for congressional candidates during both nomination and general election periods. Newberry argued that the Federal Corrupt Practices Act violated the United States Constitution and that he was thus convicted in error. The high court ruled in his favor, finding that the United States Congress had exceeded its authority in extending the regulations of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act to primary elections and nomination processes.[1]
Background
- See also: Primary election
Case history
Truman H. Newberry defeated Henry Ford in the 1918 United States Senate election in Michigan. On November 29, 1919, Newberry and 134 campaign associates were indicted in federal court for violating state and federal campaign finance laws. Newberry and his associates were found guilty on March 20, 1920, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oral argument in the case took place on January 7 and 10, 1921.[1][2]
Decision
On May 2, 1921, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Newberry. Associate Justice James C. McReynolds penned the court's majority opinion:[1]
| “ | We cannot conclude that authority to control party primaries or conventions for designating candidates was bestowed on Congress by the grant of power to regulate the manner of holding elections. The fair intendment of the words does not extend so far; the framers of the Constitution did not ascribe to them any such meaning. Nor is this control necessary in order to effectuate the power expressly granted. On the other hand, its exercise would interfere with purely domestic affairs of the state, and infringe upon liberties reserved to the people.[3] | ” |
| —Associate Justice James C. McReynolds | ||
Chief Justice Edward D. White penned a partial dissent, in which he wrote the following:[1]
| “ | In view, then, of the plain text of the Constitution, of the power exerted under it from the beginning, of the action of Congress in its legislation, and of the amendment to the Constitution, as well as of the legislative action of substantially the larger portion of the states, I can see no reason for now denying the power of Congress to regulate a subject which, from its very nature, inheres in and is concerned with the election of Senators of the United States as provided by the Constitution.[3] | ” |
| —Chief Justice Edward D. White | ||
The high court's decision in this case was ultimately overturned by the court's ruling in United States v. Classic (1941).
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Supreme Court of the United States, "Newberry v. United States: Opinion," May 2, 1921
- ↑ United States Senate, "The Election Case of Truman H. Newberry of Michigan (1922)," accessed December 27, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
