Presidential power of removal: Myers v United States
Presidential Power of Removal
What is the Presidential Power of Removal?
The Presidential Power of Removal refers to the President’s authority to remove executive officers or officials appointed to carry out laws or policies. This power is crucial because it determines the extent to which the President can control the executive branch and ensure faithful execution of the laws.
The power is often balanced against legislative attempts to protect civil servants from arbitrary removal and to promote independence in regulatory or administrative agencies.
Why is the Removal Power Important?
Control over Executive Branch: The President needs authority to remove officials who undermine policy or fail in duties.
Checks and Balances: Congress may try to restrict removal to protect officials from political interference, raising constitutional questions.
Separation of Powers: The removal power tests the boundaries between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Landmark Case: Myers v. United States (1926)
Facts:
Frank S. Myers was a postmaster, appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.
The law required Senate approval for removal of postmasters.
President Woodrow Wilson removed Myers without Senate approval.
Myers sued for his salary claiming the removal was unlawful.
Issue:
Does the President have the exclusive power to remove executive officers without Senate approval?
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the President.
Chief Justice Taft, writing for the majority, held that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive officers appointed by him, without needing Senate consent.
Reasoning:
The Court emphasized the unitary executive theory—the President must have control over executive officers to ensure faithful execution of laws.
Senate confirmation is for appointments, but removal power is vested solely in the President unless Congress explicitly limits it.
Limiting removal power would weaken presidential control and disrupt separation of powers.
Significance:
Myers affirmed broad Presidential removal power over purely executive officials.
It set a precedent that the President’s ability to remove executive officers is a constitutional necessity for effective executive function.
Other Important Cases on Removal Power
1. Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts:
William Humphrey was a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), an independent regulatory agency.
The President removed him for political reasons.
The FTC was created by statute with removal protections except for cause.
Issue:
Can the President remove members of independent regulatory agencies without cause?
Holding:
The Court upheld the removal restrictions.
It distinguished between purely executive officers (Myers) and members of independent agencies performing quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.
Significance:
The Court limited Myers by allowing Congress to restrict removal of officials in independent agencies.
This recognized the need for independence in certain administrative bodies.
2. Wiener v. United States (1958)
Facts:
Wiener was a member of the War Claims Commission with a statutory removal restriction.
The President removed him without cause.
Issue:
Does the President have the power to remove officials from quasi-judicial agencies at will?
Holding:
The Court upheld the removal restrictions, reinforcing Humphrey's Executor.
It emphasized that Congress may impose limitations to ensure agency independence.
Significance:
Reinforced that certain officials have protection from at-will removal to maintain agency impartiality.
3. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Facts:
The PCAOB members could be removed only for cause by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), whose commissioners can be removed only for cause by the President.
Issue:
Whether this two-layered "for cause" removal restriction violates the Constitution.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled the dual-layer removal restriction unconstitutional.
The President must have sufficient control over executive officers.
Significance:
Strengthened the unitary executive theory, emphasizing presidential control.
Limited Congress’s ability to insulate officials through multiple layers of protection.
4. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Facts:
The CFPB was headed by a single director removable only for cause.
The President challenged this removal restriction.
Issue:
Whether a single-director agency with for-cause removal protection violates separation of powers.
Holding:
The Court ruled that the for-cause removal restriction was unconstitutional as it limited presidential control over a single director.
The restriction was severed from the statute, allowing the President to remove the director at will.
Significance:
Reaffirmed strong presidential removal power.
Distinguished between multi-member commissions (which may have some protections) and single-director agencies (which must be removable at will).
5. Myers v. United States (Dissenting Opinion) – Justice Holmes
Holmes dissented in Myers, arguing that Congress could impose reasonable removal restrictions.
He warned against excessive presidential control over independent officials.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Issue | Holding / Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Myers v. United States | 1926 | President’s power to remove executive officers | President has exclusive removal power |
| Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. | 1935 | Removal restrictions on independent agencies | Congress can limit removal for independent agencies |
| Wiener v. U.S. | 1958 | Removal from quasi-judicial agency | Removal protections upheld |
| Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB | 2010 | Dual for-cause removal layers | Dual layers unconstitutional, limits on Congress |
| Seila Law v. CFPB | 2020 | Removal protection for single-director agency | For-cause removal restriction unconstitutional |
Conclusion
Myers v. United States firmly established the President’s exclusive power to remove executive officers without Senate approval, rooted in separation of powers and effective executive control.
Later cases such as Humphrey’s Executor carved out exceptions, allowing Congress to protect certain independent agencies from at-will removal to maintain agency independence.
Modern cases like Free Enterprise Fund and Seila Law continue to balance agency independence with presidential control, often reinforcing strong executive authority.
The presidential power of removal remains a dynamic area balancing effective executive leadership against the need for independent administration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments