## Facts

- Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. was re-elected as the Representative from New York’s 18th Congressional District for the 90th Congress.
- A House investigation reported alleged financial and ethical misconduct connected to Powell’s prior committee chairmanship, including questioned travel reimbursements and salary payments to his wife.
- When the 90th Congress convened, Powell was asked to stand aside during the administration of the oath to other members-elect.
- The House adopted a resolution creating a Select Committee to determine Powell’s eligibility to be seated.
- The Select Committee recommended seating Powell while imposing discipline (censure and a fine).
- The House instead adopted a resolution excluding Powell, declaring his seat vacant, censuring him, fining him \$25,000, and removing his seniority.
- Powell and constituents sued House leadership and officers seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the House added unconstitutional qualifications beyond age, citizenship, and residency.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the court of appeals affirmed on different rationales.
- While the case was pending, the 90th Congress ended and Powell was seated in the 91st Congress, but he continued to claim back salary for the period of exclusion.

## Issues

1. Whether the case became moot after the 90th Congress ended and Powell was seated in the 91st Congress.
2. Whether the Speech or Debate Clause barred the suit and judicial review of the challenged actions.
3. Whether the dispute was a nonjusticiable political question because Article I, §5 commits judging member qualifications to the House.
4. Whether the House may exclude a member-elect who satisfies Article I, §2 qualifications based on alleged misconduct not listed in Article I, §2.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held the case was not moot because a live controversy remained over back salary allegedly owed for the 90th Congress.
- The Court held the dispute was justiciable and not barred by the political question doctrine; determining the constitutional meaning of “Qualifications” is for courts.
- The Court held the Speech or Debate Clause did not bar claims against House officers for administrative implementation of the exclusion (e.g., refusing salary or access).
- On the merits, the Court held the House may not exclude a duly elected member who meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in Article I, §2.
- The Court reversed and remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment that the exclusion was unconstitutional, supporting Powell’s back-pay claim.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, §2, cl. 2 sets the exclusive qualifications for membership in the House (age, citizenship, and residency); neither House may add qualifications for initial seating.
- Article I, §5 authorizes each House to judge elections, returns, and qualifications, but that authority is limited to the constitutionally enumerated qualifications and is subject to judicial review.
- A claim for withheld congressional salary can preserve a live case or controversy even after the relevant congressional term ends.
- The Speech or Debate Clause protects legislative acts but does not immunize House officers’ administrative actions implementing House decisions when those actions are challenged for constitutionality.
- Exclusion of a member-elect who meets Article I, §2 qualifications cannot be used as a substitute for expulsion; discipline for misconduct must proceed under the Constitution’s expulsion mechanism and requirements.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that the House lacked constitutional authority to exclude a duly elected member who met Article I’s standing qualifications, held the dispute justiciable despite separation-of-powers concerns, and ordered declaratory relief because the back-salary claim kept the controversy live.


Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)