View source for Ex parte Garland

{{Use American English|date=September 2025}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
  |Litigants=Ex parte Garland
  |ArgueDate=December 15
  |ArgueDateB=22
  |ArgueYear=1865
  |ReargueDateA=March 13
  |ReargueDateB=15
  |ReargueYear=1866
  |DecideDate=January 14
  |DecideYear=1867
  |FullName=Ex parte Garland
  |USVol=71
  |USPage=333
  |ParallelCitations=4 [[John William Wallace|Wall.]] 333; 18 [[L. Ed.]] 366; 1866 [[LexisNexis|U.S. LEXIS]] 886
  |Prior=
  |Subsequent=
  |Holding=Congress cannot punish a person for a crime for which the person has been pardoned.
  |Majority=Field
  |JoinMajority=Wayne, Nelson, Grier, Clifford
  |Dissent=Miller
  |JoinDissent=Chase, Swayne, Davis
  |LawsApplied=
}}
'''''Ex parte Garland''''', 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 333 (1867), was an important [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case involving the disbarment of former [[Confederate States of America|Confederate]] officials.

==Background==
In January 1865, the [[US Congress]] passed a law that effectively disbarred former members of the Confederate government by requiring a [[loyalty oath]] to be recited by any federal court officer that affirmed that the officer had never served in the Confederate government.

[[Augustus Hill Garland]], an attorney and a former Confederate Senator from [[Arkansas]], subsequently received a pardon from US President [[Andrew Johnson]]. Garland then came before the court and pleaded that the act of Congress was a [[bill of attainder]] and an [[ex post facto law|''ex post facto'' law]], which unfairly punished him for the crime for which he had been pardoned, and so was unconstitutional.

==Decision==
In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the law was both a [[bill of attainder]] and an ''[[ex post facto]]'' law, both forbidden by [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 9: Limits on Federal power|Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution]]. The court also ruled that the president can exercise the pardon power at any time after the commission of the crime, and that Garland was beyond the reach of punishment of any kind because of his prior presidential pardon.<ref>On limitations to the president's pardon power, see: {{cite journal|first=Zachary J. |last=Broughton |url=https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1815&context=lawreview |title=I Beg Your Pardon: Ex Parte Garland Overruled; The Presidential Pardon Is No Longer Unlimited |journal=Western New England Law Review |volume=41 |issue=183 |year=2019 |pages=183–218 |access-date=December 4, 2020}}</ref>

The court also stated that counselors are officers of the court, not officers of the United States, and that their removal was an exercise of judicial power, not legislative power. The law was struck down as unconstitutional, which opened the way for former Confederate government officials to return to positions in the federal judiciary.

==Notes==
<references />

==External links==
*{{wikisource-inline|Ex parte Garland}}
* {{caselaw source
 | case = ''Ex parte Garland'', {{ussc|71|333|1866|Wall.|4|el=no}}
 | cornell = https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/71/333
 | courtlistener = https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/87779/ex-parte-garland/
 | findlaw = https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/71/333.html
 | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2981583583221536357
 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/71/333/
 | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep071/usrep071333/usrep071333.pdf
 | openjurist =https://openjurist.org/71/us/333
 }}

{{USArticleI}}
{{Reconstruction Era}}

[[Category:1866 in United States case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Chase Court]]
[[Category:United States clemency case law]]
[[Category:United States Constitution Article One case law]]
[[Category:United States ex post facto case law]]
[[Category:Reconstruction era]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]