Eithics in Government Act.

Morrison v. Olson

Justice Scalia's dissent

Justice Scalia, the lone dissenter, said that the law should be struck down because (1) criminal prosecution is an exercise of "purely executive power" and (2) the law deprived the president of "exclusive control" of that power.

In his opinion, Scalia also predicted how the law might be abused in practice, writing, "I fear the Court has permanently encumbered the Republic with an institution that will do it great harm."

Conservatives like Senator Bob Dole began to share his concern when in 1992, four days before the US presidential election, Lawrence Walsh announced the re-indictment of former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger on charges related to the Iran–Contra affair.[2] Critics[who?] also sensed partisan politics when Walsh's office leaked a note suggesting President Bush had lied about his connections to the affair.

Concerns were also raised, in line with Scalia's dissent, when independent counsel Kenneth Starr spent $40 million and more than four years investigating President Clinton's land deals and extramarital affairs.[3] Many[who?] believed the investigation was plagued by partisanship.