UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
GARFIELD V. GOLDSBY, 211 U. S. 249 (1908)
211 U. S. 249-->
U.S. Supreme Court
Garfield v. Goldsby, 211 U.S. 249 (1908)
Garfield v. Goldsby
No. 248
Argued October 15, 18, 1908
Decided November 30, 1908
211 U.S. 249
Syllabus
While acts of public officials which require the exercise of discretion may not be subject to review in the courts, if such acts are purely ministerial or are undertaken without authority, the courts have jurisdiction, and mandamus is the proper remedy.
There is no place in our constitutional system for the exercise of arbitrary power, and the courts have power to restore the status of parties aggrieved by the unwarranted action of a public official.
One who has acquired rights by an administrative or judicial proceeding cannot be deprived of them without notice and opportunity to be heard; such deprivation would be without due process of law.
After the Secretary of the Interior has approved a list containing the name of a person found by the Dawes Commission to be entitled to enrollment for distribution, he cannot, without giving that person clubjuris
notice and opportunity to be heard, strike his name from the list. It would not be due process of law.
30 App.D.C. 177 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion. clubjuris