Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Gaines v. Thompson — Opinion of the Court

He then argues, that by the Constitution the President is invested with certain political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and for which he is accountable only to his country and his conscience, and that he has officers to aid him in the exercise of these powers, who are directly accountable to him. The acts of such an officer, he says, can never, as an officer, be examinable in a court of justice.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Gaines v. Thompson — Opinion of the Court

In the same case the Chief Justice gives is this clear definition of a ministerial duty in the relation in which we have been considering it: 'A ministerial duty, the performance of which may in proper cases be required of the head of a department by judicial process, is one in respect to which nothing is left to discretion. It is a simple, definite duty, arising under circumstances admitted or proved to exist and imposed by law.'
The action of the officers of the land department, with which we are asked to interfere in this case, is clearly not of this character.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller Gaines v. Thompson — Opinion of the Court

The head of an executive department of the government, in the administration of the various and important concerns of his office, is continually required to exercise judgment and discretion. He must exercise his judgment in expounding the laws and resolutions of Congress under which he is required to act.' 'If,' he says, 'a suit should come before this court, which involved the construction of any of those laws, the court certainly would not be bound to adopt the construction given by the head of the department.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature