Removal of agency officials
🔷 Removal of Agency Officials
🔹 What Does “Removal” Mean in This Context?
In U.S. administrative law, removal refers to the President’s power to dismiss federal officers, especially those serving in executive or independent agencies.
Removal power is a constitutional and statutory issue.
It involves a balance between Executive control and agency independence.
The Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2) and Take Care Clause (Article II, Section 3) of the U.S. Constitution are often invoked in removal disputes.
🔹 Key Legal Questions
Can Congress restrict the President’s power to remove agency officials?
Does the type of agency (executive vs. independent) affect removal?
How does removal protection affect the constitutionality of the agency?
🔹 Types of Agencies
Executive Agencies: Headed by officials directly answerable to the President (e.g., Department of Justice). Typically, removable at will.
Independent Regulatory Agencies: Structured to be independent (e.g., SEC, FTC). Heads often have “for cause” removal protections.
🔷 Landmark Cases on Removal of Agency Officials
Here are six major cases that illustrate the evolution of removal power jurisprudence:
1. Myers v. United States (1926)
Citation: 272 U.S. 52
Facts:
President Woodrow Wilson removed a postmaster without Senate approval, even though a law required Senate consent.
The issue was whether Congress could restrict the President’s power to remove executive officials.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the President.
Held that the President has exclusive power to remove executive branch officials.
Significance:
Strongly affirmed Presidential control over purely executive officers.
Set a precedent that Congress cannot limit removal of such officers.
2. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Citation: 295 U.S. 602
Facts:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt removed a Federal Trade Commissioner for policy disagreement, though the statute allowed removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”
The estate of the dismissed commissioner sued for back pay.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the removal restrictions.
Distinguished between purely executive officers and quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial officers in independent agencies.
Significance:
Established that Congress can impose removal restrictions for heads of independent agencies.
Created the “Humphrey’s Executor Doctrine”, allowing limited Presidential removal power for certain agency officials.
3. Wiener v. United States (1958)
Citation: 357 U.S. 349
Facts:
Involved the removal of a member of the War Claims Commission (a quasi-judicial body).
The statute did not expressly address removal, yet the President removed the member.
Judgment:
The Court held the removal was unconstitutional, emphasizing the nature of the agency's function.
The President could not remove officials of a quasi-judicial agency without cause.
Significance:
Reinforced agency independence when officials perform judicial-like functions.
Clarified that even absent an explicit removal clause, structure and function can limit removal.
4. Morrison v. Olson (1988)
Citation: 487 U.S. 654
Facts:
Challenged the constitutionality of the Independent Counsel provision of the Ethics in Government Act.
The Independent Counsel could be removed only for good cause by the Attorney General.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the removal restrictions, finding that they did not unduly interfere with Presidential powers.
Held that the Independent Counsel was an “inferior officer” and the limitations were valid.
Significance:
Allowed removal protections for inferior officers.
Demonstrated that separation of powers is flexible, permitting some congressional constraints on executive authority.
5. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Citation: 561 U.S. 477
Facts:
Challenge to the structure of the PCAOB, whose members were protected by two layers of removal restrictions: only removable for cause by SEC commissioners, who themselves were removable for cause by the President.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the dual-layer for-cause removal protection as unconstitutional.
Held that such structure violated separation of powers by insulating the PCAOB from Presidential oversight.
Significance:
Important precedent limiting excessive insulation of agency officials.
Established that at least one level of control (typically removal power) must exist between the President and the agency.
6. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Citation: 591 U.S. ___ (2020)
Facts:
Seila Law challenged the structure of the CFPB, which was headed by a single director who could only be removed for cause.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that the single-director structure with for-cause removal protection violated the Constitution.
Distinguished between multi-member commissions (like FTC) and single directors with broad authority.
Significance:
Reinforced Presidential power over executive agencies.
Limited Humphrey’s Executor by narrowing when Congress can impose removal restrictions.
Confirmed that independent single-head agencies are more problematic than multi-member commissions.
🔹 Bonus: Collins v. Yellen (2021)
Citation: 594 U.S. ___ (2021)
Facts:
Challenged the removal protection of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) director.
Judgment:
The Court held that the FHFA director’s for-cause removal protection violated separation of powers (similar to Seila Law).
Significance:
Extended Seila Law’s logic to other agencies with single heads and removal protections.
Reinforced the principle that Presidential control over executive officers cannot be unduly restricted.
🔷 Summary of Key Principles from Precedent
| Case | Year | Key Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Myers v. U.S. | 1926 | President has exclusive power to remove executive officers. |
| Humphrey’s Executor | 1935 | Congress can limit removal of officials in independent agencies. |
| Wiener v. U.S. | 1958 | President cannot remove officials from quasi-judicial bodies without cause. |
| Morrison v. Olson | 1988 | Good-cause removal for inferior officers is constitutional. |
| Free Enterprise Fund | 2010 | Dual for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional. |
| Seila Law | 2020 | Single-director independent agencies with removal protection are unconstitutional. |
| Collins v. Yellen | 2021 | Reinforced Seila Law; invalidated similar structure in FHFA. |
🔷 Conclusion
The removal of agency officials remains a contested area of U.S. administrative law. The courts have gradually refined the balance between:
Presidential control over the executive branch
And Congressional interest in creating independent regulatory bodies
Through case law precedent, the Supreme Court has established that:
Purely executive officers must be removable at will.
Independent agencies can have limited protections, but not excessive insulation.
Structure and function of the agency determine the level of permissible removal protection.
RELATED Blog
0 comments