McGrain v. Daugherty

Definition

McGrain v. Daugherty is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1927 that affirmed Congress's power to compel testimony and investigate matters within its jurisdiction. This case underscored the principle that Congress has inherent investigative authority, which is crucial for effective oversight of the executive branch and maintaining checks and balances in the government.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case arose when John Daugherty refused to comply with a subpoena issued by a Senate committee investigating the Teapot Dome scandal.
2. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to compel testimony as part of its legislative functions, reinforcing the principle of checks and balances.
3. The decision established a precedent for Congress's ability to conduct investigations and hold individuals accountable for failing to provide testimony or documents.
4. The ruling clarified that the investigative powers of Congress are essential for it to effectively carry out its legislative responsibilities.
5. McGrain v. Daugherty set important limits on the scope of congressional inquiries, emphasizing the need for relevance to legislative functions.

Review Questions

• How did McGrain v. Daugherty impact Congress's ability to conduct investigations?
  • McGrain v. Daugherty significantly enhanced Congress's ability to conduct investigations by affirming its right to compel testimony. The Supreme Court's ruling established that investigative powers are intrinsic to Congress's legislative functions, allowing it to oversee the executive branch effectively. This decision ensured that Congress could gather necessary information, maintain checks on executive actions, and uphold accountability.
• In what ways does McGrain v. Daugherty illustrate the balance between congressional oversight and individual rights?
  • McGrain v. Daugherty highlights the tension between congressional oversight and individual rights, particularly regarding the power of Congress to issue subpoenas. While the ruling affirmed Congress's right to compel testimony, it also raised questions about due process and an individual's obligation to comply with such requests. The case emphasizes the need for Congress to exercise its investigative powers responsibly while respecting constitutional protections.
• Evaluate the long-term implications of McGrain v. Daugherty on the relationship between Congress and the executive branch in terms of investigative authority.
  • The long-term implications of McGrain v. Daugherty have shaped the dynamic between Congress and the executive branch by establishing a clear framework for congressional investigative authority. This case reinforced the principle that Congress has essential oversight capabilities to monitor executive actions, which is crucial for maintaining accountability in government. The precedent set by this ruling has allowed Congress to expand its investigative powers over time, leading to a more robust system of checks and balances that continues to influence contemporary political interactions.

Related terms

Subpoena: A legal document that orders an individual to testify or produce evidence in a legal proceeding.

Oversight: The process by which Congress monitors and supervises federal agencies, programs, and policies to ensure compliance with laws and effectiveness.

Separation of Powers: The constitutional principle that divides government responsibilities among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from gaining too much power.