Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

United States v. Wurzbach

• 1929 • 280 U.S. 396 • Hughes Court
In the United States v. Wurzbach case of 1929, Harry M. Wurzbach, a member of Congress from Texas, was indicted for conspiring to solicit and accept political contributions from federal employees in violation of federal law. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not members of Congress were exempted from this statute due to their positions as public officials. In its decision, the court ruled that no such exemption existed for members of Congress and therefore upheld Wurzbach's indictment...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1929
Docket: 66
280 U.S. 396
50 S. Ct. 167
74 L. Ed. 508
1930 U.S. LEXIS 758
Argued: Jan 20, 1930

United States v. Wurzbach

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the United States v. Wurzbach case of 1929, Harry M. Wurzbach, a member of Congress from Texas, was indicted for conspiring to solicit and accept political contributions from federal employees in violation of federal law. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not members of Congress were exempted from this statute due to their positions as public officials. In its decision, the court ruled that no such exemption existed for members of Congress and therefore upheld Wurzbach's indictment under the statute prohibiting solicitation and acceptance of political contributions by persons receiving compensation or payment from the United States government.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Wurzbach, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that Congress did not have the power to regulate primary elections under Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. He contended that primaries were a matter of state law and thus outside federal jurisdiction unless they directly affected federal elections or offices. According to him, since there was no evidence in this case showing that corruption in Texas's primary election had influenced its general election or any federal officeholder’s actions, it fell beyond congressional authority to regulate it under the Federal Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). Therefore, he disagreed with majority's decision which upheld Harry M. Wurzbach's conviction for violating FCPA by accepting campaign contributions exceeding legal limits during his primary run for re-election as U.S Representative from Texas.

Opinion written by Justice OWHolmes
Decided: Feb 24, 1930
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms