31:
449:
463:
653:
370:
used an equally exhaustive analysis of quotes from members of the
Constitutional Convention and, writing that he found no language in the Constitution or in the notes from the Convention intended to grant the President the "illimitable power" to fire every appointed official "as caprice may suggest"
324:
Taft first examined the notes of the
Constitutional Convention and found its silence on the subject to be intentional. The Convention had discussed the dismissal of executive-branch staff and believed that it was implicit in the Constitution that the President held the exclusive power to remove his
422:
Myers case dealt with the removal of a postmaster, an executive officer restricted to executive functions and charged with no duty at all related to either the legislative or the judicial power. The actual decision in the Myers case finds support in the theory that such an officer is merely one of
391:
noted that it was within the power of
Congress to abolish the position of Postmaster entirely, not to mention to set the position's pay and duties, and he had no problem believing Congress also ought to be able to set terms of the position's occupiers.
423:
the units in the executive department, and, hence, inherently subject to the exclusive and illimitable power of removal by the Chief
Executive, whose subordinate he is. That decision goes no farther than to include purely executive officers.
1058:
384:, "assumed, as the basis of decision, that the President, acting alone, is powerless to remove an inferior civil officer appointed for a fixed term with the consent of the Senate; and that case was long regarded as so deciding."
859:
338:
The Court therefore found that the statute was unconstitutional, as it violated the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches. In reaching its decision, the Court also expressly found the
1341:
1294:
1286:
1216:
477:
894:
112:
The
President has the exclusive authority to remove Executive Branch officials from office and the Appointments Clause generally prohibits Congress from restricting this power.
1383:
321:
mentions the appointment of officials but is silent on their dismissal. He proceeded to conduct a voluminous examination on the history of the
President's removal power.
1141:
811:
1133:
1224:
902:
668:
483:
429:
267:
74:
1378:
332:
and said that the decision indicated that a "considerable majority" of
Congress were in "favor of declaring the power of removal to be in the President."
299:. An 1876 federal law provided that "Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President with the
1310:
1388:
1042:
754:
303:
of the Senate." Myers argued that his dismissal violated this law, and he was entitled to back pay for the unfilled portion of his four-year term.
418:
distinguished executive officers from officers occupying "quasi-legislative" or "quasi-judicial" positions. The majority opinion stated that:
657:
961:
1403:
1368:
1192:
405:
261:
1398:
1373:
1393:
747:
343:, which had imposed a similar requirement on other Presidential appointees and was known for playing a key role in the
311:
244:
35:
318:
1302:
740:
351:, to have been invalid. The Act, however, had been repealed by Congress some years before the Court's decision.
969:
248:
835:
819:
344:
827:
724:
437:
as establishing a general rule of unencumbered presidential removal authority for all executive officers."
1125:
340:
1149:
1034:
688:
403:
was the first case to concern congressional limitations on the
President's removal power. In 1935, in
1117:
929:
878:
795:
388:
135:
1176:
1168:
843:
803:
706:
1200:
953:
945:
910:
167:
1109:
1066:
1007:
886:
851:
367:
147:
561:
732:
672:
358:
in Taft's opinion suggested that
Congress could never qualify the President's removal power.
66:
988:
697:
454:
329:
256:
171:
8:
763:
314:
230:
143:
127:
787:
679:
633:
380:
348:
300:
715:
1232:
1208:
159:
1251:
1050:
937:
292:
252:
1101:
179:
69:
375:
296:
155:
1362:
275:
as establishing that the
President generally has unencumbered removal power.
279:
was the first Supreme Court case to address the president's removal powers.
1015:
562:"Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues"
325:
staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority.
378:
wrote that the fundamental case deciding the power of the Supreme Court,
335:
Taft finally analyzed subsequent congressional debates over the issue.
468:
288:
85:
462:
652:
478:
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
196:
Taft, joined by Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, Sanford, Stone
355:
259:
or any other legislative body. It was distinguished in 1935 by
81:
30:
762:
371:
in the entire government, with the exception of judges.
484:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 272
430:
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
268:
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
444:
1384:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Taft Court
1311:Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
255:officials, and does not need the approval of the
1360:
1043:Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands
612:, 272 U.S. at 272 (McReynolds, J., dissenting).
600:, 272 U.S. at 239 (McReynolds, J., dissenting).
56:Frank S. Myers, Administratrix v. United States
748:
555:
553:
551:
549:
547:
1379:United States separation of powers case law
776:
624:, 272 U.S. at 177 (Holmes, J., dissenting).
566:The University of Chicago Law Review Online
354:As would be important in subsequent cases,
1275:
755:
741:
544:
317:, writing for the Court, noted that the
1389:United States Postal Service litigation
1090:
295:, was removed from office by President
287:In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class
1361:
559:
271:(2020), the Supreme Court interpreted
1329:
1274:
1089:
775:
736:
395:
18:1926 United States Supreme Court case
1193:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
658:Myers v. United States (272 U.S. 52)
635:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
560:Mashaw, Jerry L. (August 27, 2020).
406:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
312:Chief Justice (and former President)
262:Humphrey's Executor v. United States
13:
860:FOMBPR v. Aurelius Investment, LLC
251:has the exclusive power to remove
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1415:
1404:United States Supreme Court cases
1342:FEC v. NRA Political Victory Fund
764:United States Appointments Clause
645:
1330:
675:52 (1926) is available from:
651:
461:
447:
410:the Supreme Court distinguished
29:
1303:Elgin v. Department of Treasury
1287:Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich
637:, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) at p.295.
627:
433:(2020), the Court "interpreted
231:U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2
102:Appeal from the Court of Claims
1369:1926 in United States case law
970:United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
615:
603:
591:
579:
532:
520:
508:
496:
1:
1295:Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB
1217:Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB
489:
345:impeachment of Andrew Johnson
1399:Presidency of Woodrow Wilson
1374:Appointments Clause case law
828:Quackenbush v. United States
243:, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a
7:
1394:History of Portland, Oregon
1126:McAllister v. United States
440:
361:
245:United States Supreme Court
10:
1420:
1150:Shurtleff v. United States
1035:Shoemaker v. United States
1000:Challenges to Appointments
306:
45:Reargued April 13–14, 1925
1336:
1325:
1281:
1270:
1243:
1160:
1118:Crenshaw v. United States
1096:
1085:
1026:
999:
980:
930:United States v. Germaine
921:
879:United States v. Hartwell
870:
796:United States v. Le Baron
782:
771:
414:and disavowed its dicta.
247:decision ruling that the
229:
224:
216:
208:
200:
192:
187:
121:
116:
111:
106:
98:
93:
61:
51:
42:
28:
23:
1177:Parsons v. United States
1169:United States v. Perkins
1027:Appointments by Congress
844:NLRB v. SW General, Inc.
804:Mimmack v. United States
282:
47:Decided October 25, 1926
1201:Wiener v. United States
1161:Limits on Removal Power
1142:Reagan v. United States
954:Edmond v. United States
946:Freytag v. Commissioner
911:Burnap v. United States
812:United States v. Corson
777:Appointment of Officers
374:In a separate dissent,
43:Argued December 5, 1923
1276:Jurisdiction stripping
1185:Myers v. United States
1110:Blake v. United States
1067:Weiss v. United States
1008:Ryder v. United States
895:United States v. Smith
887:United States v. Mouat
871:Officers vs. Employees
852:Ortiz v. United States
836:United States v. Smith
820:United States v. Eaton
665:Myers v. United States
425:
366:In a lengthy dissent,
240:Myers v. United States
24:Myers v. United States
1134:Keim v. United States
541:, 272 U.S. at 111-14.
529:, 272 U.S. at 110-11.
420:
989:NLRB v. Noel Canning
455:United States portal
387:In a third dissent,
341:Tenure of Office Act
330:the Decision of 1789
328:Taft then discussed
136:Oliver W. Holmes Jr.
1244:Removal by Congress
1091:Removal of Officers
981:Recess Appointments
903:Auffmordt v. Hedden
725:Library of Congress
315:William Howard Taft
148:James C. McReynolds
144:Willis Van Devanter
788:Marbury v. Madison
588:, 272 U.S. at 176.
396:Precedential value
381:Marbury v. Madison
368:Justice McReynolds
349:Reconstruction era
301:advice and consent
132:Associate Justices
1356:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1321:
1320:
1266:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1233:Collins v. Yellen
1225:Selia Law v. CFPB
1209:Morrison v. Olson
1081:
1080:
1077:
1076:
922:Inferior Officers
656:Works related to
517:, 272 U.S. at 59.
505:, 272 U.S. at 57.
236:
235:
172:Edward T. Sanford
160:George Sutherland
80:47 S. Ct. 21; 71
1411:
1327:
1326:
1272:
1271:
1252:Bowsher v. Synar
1158:
1157:
1087:
1086:
1051:Buckley v. Valeo
938:Ex parte Siebold
868:
867:
773:
772:
757:
750:
743:
734:
733:
729:
723:
720:
714:
711:
705:
702:
696:
693:
687:
684:
678:
655:
639:
631:
625:
619:
613:
607:
601:
595:
589:
583:
577:
576:
574:
572:
557:
542:
536:
530:
524:
518:
512:
506:
500:
471:
466:
465:
457:
452:
451:
450:
376:Justice Brandeis
293:Portland, Oregon
253:executive branch
117:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
20:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1348:
1332:
1317:
1277:
1258:
1239:
1156:
1102:Ex parte Hennen
1092:
1073:
1022:
995:
976:
917:
866:
778:
767:
761:
727:
721:
718:
712:
709:
703:
700:
694:
691:
685:
682:
676:
648:
643:
642:
632:
628:
620:
616:
608:
604:
596:
592:
584:
580:
570:
568:
558:
545:
537:
533:
525:
521:
513:
509:
501:
497:
492:
467:
460:
453:
448:
446:
443:
398:
364:
309:
285:
180:Harlan F. Stone
170:
158:
146:
128:William H. Taft
89:
46:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1417:
1407:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1376:
1371:
1354:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1347:
1346:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1316:
1315:
1307:
1299:
1291:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1257:
1256:
1247:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1238:
1237:
1229:
1221:
1213:
1205:
1197:
1189:
1181:
1173:
1164:
1162:
1155:
1154:
1146:
1138:
1130:
1122:
1114:
1106:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1072:
1071:
1063:
1055:
1047:
1039:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1021:
1020:
1012:
1003:
1001:
997:
996:
994:
993:
984:
982:
978:
977:
975:
974:
966:
958:
950:
942:
934:
925:
923:
919:
918:
916:
915:
907:
899:
891:
883:
874:
872:
865:
864:
856:
848:
840:
832:
824:
816:
808:
800:
792:
783:
780:
779:
769:
768:
760:
759:
752:
745:
737:
731:
730:
707:Google Scholar
661:
647:
646:External links
644:
641:
640:
626:
614:
602:
590:
578:
543:
531:
519:
507:
494:
493:
491:
488:
487:
486:
481:
473:
472:
458:
442:
439:
397:
394:
389:Justice Holmes
363:
360:
308:
305:
297:Woodrow Wilson
284:
281:
265:. However, in
234:
233:
227:
226:
222:
221:
218:
214:
213:
210:
206:
205:
202:
198:
197:
194:
190:
189:
185:
184:
183:
182:
156:Louis Brandeis
133:
130:
125:
119:
118:
114:
113:
109:
108:
104:
103:
100:
96:
95:
91:
90:
79:
63:
59:
58:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1416:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1372:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1364:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1328:
1324:
1313:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1273:
1269:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1159:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1088:
1084:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1025:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1004:
1002:
998:
991:
990:
986:
985:
983:
979:
972:
971:
967:
964:
963:
959:
956:
955:
951:
948:
947:
943:
940:
939:
935:
932:
931:
927:
926:
924:
920:
913:
912:
908:
905:
904:
900:
897:
896:
892:
889:
888:
884:
881:
880:
876:
875:
873:
869:
862:
861:
857:
854:
853:
849:
846:
845:
841:
838:
837:
833:
830:
829:
825:
822:
821:
817:
814:
813:
809:
806:
805:
801:
798:
797:
793:
790:
789:
785:
784:
781:
774:
770:
765:
758:
753:
751:
746:
744:
739:
738:
735:
726:
717:
708:
699:
690:
689:CourtListener
681:
674:
670:
666:
662:
660:at Wikisource
659:
654:
650:
649:
638:
636:
630:
623:
618:
611:
606:
599:
594:
587:
582:
567:
563:
556:
554:
552:
550:
548:
540:
535:
528:
523:
516:
511:
504:
499:
495:
485:
482:
480:
479:
475:
474:
470:
464:
459:
456:
445:
438:
436:
432:
431:
424:
419:
417:
413:
409:
407:
402:
393:
390:
385:
383:
382:
377:
372:
369:
359:
357:
352:
350:
346:
342:
336:
333:
331:
326:
322:
320:
316:
313:
304:
302:
298:
294:
290:
280:
278:
274:
270:
269:
264:
263:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
232:
228:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
188:Case opinions
186:
181:
177:
173:
169:
168:Pierce Butler
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:Chief Justice
123:
122:
120:
115:
110:
105:
101:
97:
92:
87:
83:
77:
76:
71:
68:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1340:
1331:Ratification
1309:
1301:
1293:
1285:
1250:
1231:
1223:
1215:
1207:
1199:
1191:
1184:
1183:
1175:
1167:
1148:
1140:
1132:
1124:
1116:
1108:
1100:
1065:
1059:MWAA v. CAAN
1057:
1049:
1041:
1033:
1016:Carr v. Saul
1014:
1006:
987:
968:
962:Lucia v. SEC
960:
952:
944:
936:
928:
909:
901:
893:
885:
877:
858:
850:
842:
834:
826:
818:
810:
802:
794:
786:
664:
634:
629:
621:
617:
609:
605:
597:
593:
585:
581:
571:November 30,
569:. Retrieved
565:
538:
534:
526:
522:
514:
510:
502:
498:
476:
434:
428:
426:
421:
415:
411:
404:
400:
399:
386:
379:
373:
365:
353:
337:
334:
327:
323:
319:Constitution
310:
286:
276:
272:
266:
260:
239:
238:
237:
225:Laws applied
175:
163:
151:
139:
94:Case history
73:
55:
15:
347:during the
1363:Categories
490:References
469:Law portal
416:Humphrey's
289:Postmaster
212:McReynolds
86:U.S. LEXIS
84:160; 1926
249:President
62:Citations
766:case law
663:Text of
441:See also
362:Dissents
220:Brandeis
193:Majority
698:Findlaw
680:Cornell
307:Opinion
217:Dissent
209:Dissent
201:Dissent
107:Holding
1345:(1994)
1314:(2023)
1306:(2012)
1298:(2010)
1290:(1994)
1255:(1986)
1236:(2021)
1228:(2020)
1220:(2010)
1212:(1988)
1204:(1958)
1196:(1936)
1188:(1926)
1180:(1897)
1172:(1886)
1153:(1903)
1145:(1901)
1137:(1900)
1129:(1891)
1121:(1890)
1113:(1880)
1105:(1839)
1070:(1994)
1062:(1991)
1054:(1976)
1046:(1928)
1038:(1893)
1019:(2021)
1011:(1995)
992:(2014)
973:(2021)
965:(2018)
957:(1997)
949:(1991)
941:(1879)
933:(1878)
914:(1920)
906:(1890)
898:(1888)
890:(1888)
882:(1867)
863:(2020)
855:(2018)
847:(2017)
839:(1932)
831:(1900)
823:(1898)
815:(1885)
807:(1878)
799:(1856)
791:(1803)
728:
722:
719:
716:Justia
713:
710:
704:
701:
695:
692:
686:
683:
677:
257:Senate
204:Holmes
178:
176:·
174:
166:
164:·
162:
154:
152:·
150:
142:
140:·
138:
82:L. Ed.
671:
622:Myers
610:Myers
598:Myers
586:Myers
539:Myers
527:Myers
515:Myers
503:Myers
435:Myers
412:Myers
401:Myers
356:dicta
283:Claim
277:Myers
273:Myers
99:Prior
673:U.S.
573:2021
75:more
67:U.S.
65:272
669:272
427:In
291:in
1365::
667:,
564:.
546:^
88:35
70:52
756:e
749:t
742:v
575:.
408:,
78:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.