| Jurney v. MacCracken | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 7–8, 1935 Decided February 4, 1935 | |
| Full case name | Jurney v. MacCracken |
| Citations | 294 U.S. 125 (more) 55 S. Ct. 375; 79 L. Ed. 802; 1935 U.S. LEXIS 42 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Judgment for defendants, 63 App. D.C. 342; 72 F. (2d) 560; cert. granted, 293 U.S. 543 |
| Holding | |
| The Congress has the implicit power to find a person in contempt. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Brandeis, joined by Hughes, Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, Stone, Roberts, Cardozo |
| McReynolds took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress has an implicit power to find one in contempt of Congress.[1] During a Senate investigation of airlines and of the U.S. Postmaster General, the attorney William P. MacCracken, Jr. allowed his clients to destroy subpoenaed documents. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by the Vice-President of the United States, acting as Senate President), MacCracken, a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.[2] MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus with the federal courts to overturn his arrest, but, after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition.[1]
The respondent, Chesley W. Jurney, was the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, and hence the person with custody of MacCracken.