Humphrey’s Executor v United States (limits on removal)
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Background
Case: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
Facts: President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed William Humphrey from his position as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Humphrey challenged his removal, arguing that the President could only remove him “for cause” as per the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Issue: Does the President have the unrestricted power to remove a commissioner of an independent regulatory agency, or are there statutory limits on removal?
Supreme Court Holding
The Court ruled President Roosevelt did NOT have unlimited power to remove commissioners of independent regulatory agencies.
Commissioners could only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" — the restrictions imposed by the FTC Act.
The FTC was a quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial body, not purely executive.
Therefore, the President’s removal power is limited to preserve the agency's independence.
Significance
Established the principle that independent regulatory agencies have protection from arbitrary removal by the President.
Distinguished between purely executive officers, who serve at the President’s pleasure, and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers, who enjoy greater independence.
This case set the foundation for the balance of powers in administrative governance, emphasizing administrative independence.
Related Case Laws on Limits of Removal Power
1. Myers v. United States (1926)
Facts: Postmaster Frank Myers was removed by President Wilson without Senate approval.
Issue: Did the President have the exclusive power to remove executive officers without Senate consent?
Holding: Yes, the Court held that the President has exclusive power to remove executive branch officials.
Relation to Humphrey’s Executor: Myers upheld broad removal power but involved a purely executive officer, unlike Humphrey’s case involving independent agencies.
2. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Facts: Challenged the constitutionality of the PCAOB's structure, which limited the President's removal power of board members.
Holding: The Court ruled that dual layers of protection from removal (board members removable only for cause, and board overseers also protected) violated the separation of powers.
Relation: This case refined Humphrey’s principle, emphasizing limits on insulation from presidential removal while protecting administrative independence.
3. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Facts: CFPB director could only be removed by the President “for cause.”
Holding: The Court ruled this removal restriction unconstitutional because the CFPB was led by a single director, making it too insulated from presidential control.
Relation: This case carved out an exception to Humphrey’s rule for single-director agencies, reinforcing limits on removal restrictions.
4. Bowsher v. Synar (1986)
Facts: The Comptroller General, an officer removable only by Congress, was given executive powers by statute.
Issue: Whether Congress could retain removal power over an officer exercising executive functions.
Holding: The Court held that Congress cannot retain removal power over executive officers.
Relation: Reinforces that removal power must align with separation of powers and executive control.
5. Wiener v. United States (1958)
Facts: Wiener, a member of the War Claims Commission, was removed by the President for political reasons.
Issue: Could the President remove a member of an independent agency without cause?
Holding: The Court protected the removal restrictions for independent agencies similar to Humphrey’s Executor.
Relation: Reinforced the principle of limits on removal to protect agency independence.
6. Ex Parte Hennen (1839)
Facts: Addressed the President's authority to remove executive officers.
Holding: Held that the President can remove purely executive officers at will.
Relation: Early precedent supporting executive removal power over officers performing purely executive functions.
Summary Table of Removal Power Cases
| Case | Year | Key Holding | Relation to Humphrey’s Executor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Myers v. United States | 1926 | President has exclusive removal power over purely executive officers | Precedent for broad removal power, contrasting Humphrey’s limitation |
| Humphrey’s Executor v. United States | 1935 | Limits on removal for independent agency officials | Landmark establishing removal protections for independent agencies |
| Wiener v. United States | 1958 | Reinforced removal protections for independent agencies | Affirmed Humphrey’s principles |
| Bowsher v. Synar | 1986 | Congress cannot retain removal power over executive officers | Separation of powers principle affecting removal authority |
| Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB | 2010 | Dual removal protections violate separation of powers | Narrowed Humphrey’s protections to avoid excessive insulation |
| Seila Law LLC v. CFPB | 2020 | Removal restrictions unconstitutional for single director agencies | Carved out exception to Humphrey’s rule |
Conclusion
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States remains a cornerstone in administrative law, establishing limits on presidential removal power over independent regulatory officials.
It balances executive control with agency independence.
Subsequent cases have refined this balance, sometimes reinforcing protections (Wiener) and sometimes limiting them (Seila Law).
The removal power issue is fundamental to maintaining checks and balances and the separation of powers in governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments