Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States v. Synar, Member of Congress, et al.
The Court struck down the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act as an unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by Congress, because the law empowered Congress to terminate the Comptroller General for specified reasons.· AI-written
478 U.S. 714 · No. 85-1377 · 1985 term · Burger Court
Decided Jul 7, 1986 · argued Apr 23, 1986
Miscellaneous · Miscellaneous
Landmark · Separation of powersStruck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: Warren Burger
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Affirmed. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case that struck down the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act as an unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by Congress because the law empowered Congress to terminate the United States Comptroller General for certain specified reasons, including "inefficiency, 'neglect of duty,' or 'malfeasance.'" The named defendant in the original case was Comptroller General Charles Arthur Bowsher and the constitutional challenge was brought forth by Oklahoma congressman Mike Synar.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1985 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Warren BurgerWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
William BrennanJoined the majority
Lewis PowellJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Harry BlackmunWrote a dissent
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United StatesComptroller General
- Respondent
- Synar, Member of Congress, et al.Political candidate, activist, committee, party, party member, organization, or elected official
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article I, Section 7, Paragraph 2 (separation of powers)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jul 7, 1986DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: affirmed. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States lost.
- Apr 23, 1986ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
16 other argued cases since 1946 on miscellaneous, newest first.
- Gundy v. United States139 S. Ct. 2116Jun 20, 2019 · 139 S. Ct. 2116Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
- Lucia v. SEC138 S. Ct. 2044Jun 21, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2044Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- Hawaii et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs et al.556 U.S. 163Mar 31, 2009 · 556 U.S. 163Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
- Department of Commerce, et al. v. United States House of Representatives et al.525 U.S. 316Jan 25, 1999 · 525 U.S. 316Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
- William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York, et al.Landmark · Separation of powers524 U.S. 417Jun 25, 1998 · 524 U.S. 417MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers6–36–3 band
- Ed Plaut, et ux., et al. v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., et al.Landmark · Separation of powers514 U.S. 211Apr 18, 1995 · 514 U.S. 211MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers7–27–2 band
- Thomas Freytag, et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue501 U.S. 868Jun 27, 1991 · 501 U.S. 868Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
- Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, et al. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., et al.501 U.S. 252Jun 17, 1991 · 501 U.S. 252Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
- United States v. Stuart et al.489 U.S. 353Feb 28, 1989 · 489 U.S. 353Miscellaneous9–0Unanimous band
- Mistretta v. United States488 U.S. 361Jan 18, 1989 · 488 U.S. 361Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
- Morrison, Independent Counsel v. Olson et al.Landmark · Separation of powers487 U.S. 654Jun 27, 1988 · 487 U.S. 654MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers7–18–1 band
- Phillips Petroleum Co. et al. v. Mississippi et al.484 U.S. 469Feb 23, 1988 · 484 U.S. 469Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
- First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba462 U.S. 611Jun 17, 1983 · 462 U.S. 611Miscellaneous6–36–3 band
- United States v. Will et al.449 U.S. 200Dec 15, 1980 · 449 U.S. 200Miscellaneous8–0Unanimous band
- Granville-Smith v. Granville-Smith349 U.S. 1Apr 11, 1955 · 349 U.S. 1Miscellaneous5–36–3 band
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. et al. v. SawyerLandmark · Domestic343 U.S. 579Jun 2, 1952 · 343 U.S. 579MiscellaneousLandmark · Domestic6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.