Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. It was distinguished in 1935 by Humphrey's Executor v. United States. However, in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court interpreted Myers as establishing that the President generally has unencumbered removal power. Myers was the first Supreme Court case to address the president's removal powers.
In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson.[1] 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 advice and consent 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.[2]
Opinion
Chief Justice (and former President)William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention 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. First, Taft examined the notes of the Constitutional Convention, and found their silence on the subject to be intentional: the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive-branch staff, and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff, whose existence was an extension of the President's own authority.[3]
Second, Taft discussed the Decision of 1789 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."[4] He then analyzed subsequent congressional debates over the issue.[5]
The Court therefore found that the statute was unconstitutional, for it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. In reaching this decision, it also expressly found the Tenure of Office Act, which had imposed a similar requirement on other Presidential appointees and was known for playing a key role in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson during the Reconstruction era, to have been invalid; it had been repealed by Congress some years before this decision.[6]
Important to subsequent cases, dicta in Taft's opinion suggested Congress could never qualify the President's removal power.[7]
Dissents
In a lengthy dissent, Justice McReynolds used an equally exhaustive analysis of quotes from members of the Constitutional Convention, 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", in the entire government with the exception of judges.[8]
In a separate dissent, Justice Brandeis wrote that the fundamental case deciding the power of the Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, "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."[9]
In a third dissent, Justice Holmes 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.[10]
Precedential value
Myers was the first case to concern congressional limitations on the President's removal power.[11] In 1935, in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court distinguished Myers and disavowed its dicta.[12]Humphrey's distinguished executive officers from officers occupying "quasi-legislative" or "quasi-judicial" positions. The majority opinion stated that:[13]
[The] 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 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.
^Mashaw, Seila (2020-08-27). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved 2021-11-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^Mashaw, Seila (2020-08-27). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved 2021-11-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^Myers, 272 U.S. at 239 (McReynolds, J., dissenting).
^Myers, 272 U.S. at 272 (McReynolds, J., dissenting).
^Mashaw, Seila (2020-08-27). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved 2021-11-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ abMashaw, Seila (2020-08-27). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved 2021-11-30.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) at p.295.
External links
Works related to Myers v. United States (272 U.S. 52) at Wikisource
Text of Myers v. United States, 272U.S. 52 (1926) is available from:CornellCourtListenerFindlawGoogle ScholarJustiaLibrary of Congress
March 07, 2023
myers, united, states, 1926, united, states, supreme, court, decision, ruling, that, president, exclusive, power, remove, executive, branch, officials, does, need, approval, senate, other, legislative, body, distinguished, 1935, humphrey, executor, united, sta. Myers v United States 272 U S 52 1926 was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body It was distinguished in 1935 by Humphrey s Executor v United States However in Seila Law LLC v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2020 the Supreme Court interpreted Myers as establishing that the President generally has unencumbered removal power Myers was the first Supreme Court case to address the president s removal powers Myers v United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 5 1923Reargued April 13 14 1925Decided October 25 1926Full case nameFrank S Myers Administratrix v United StatesCitations272 U S 52 more 47 S Ct 21 71 L Ed 160 1926 U S LEXIS 35Case historyPriorAppeal from the Court of ClaimsHoldingThe President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials Court membershipChief Justice William H Taft Associate Justices Oliver W Holmes Jr Willis Van DevanterJames C McReynolds Louis BrandeisGeorge Sutherland Pierce ButlerEdward T Sanford Harlan F StoneCase opinionsMajorityTaft joined by Van Devanter Sutherland Butler Sanford StoneDissentHolmesDissentMcReynoldsDissentBrandeisLaws appliedU S Const art II 2 cl 2 Contents 1 Claim 2 Opinion 3 Dissents 4 Precedential value 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksClaim EditIn 1920 Frank S Myers a First Class Postmaster in Portland Oregon was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson 1 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 advice and consent 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 2 Opinion EditChief Justice and former President William Howard Taft writing for the Court noted that the Constitution does mention 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 First Taft examined the notes of the Constitutional Convention and found their silence on the subject to be intentional the Convention did discuss the dismissal of executive branch staff and believed it was implicit in the Constitution that the President did hold the exclusive power to remove his staff whose existence was an extension of the President s own authority 3 Second Taft discussed the Decision of 1789 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 4 He then analyzed subsequent congressional debates over the issue 5 The Court therefore found that the statute was unconstitutional for it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches In reaching this decision it also expressly found the Tenure of Office Act which had imposed a similar requirement on other Presidential appointees and was known for playing a key role in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson during the Reconstruction era to have been invalid it had been repealed by Congress some years before this decision 6 Important to subsequent cases dicta in Taft s opinion suggested Congress could never qualify the President s removal power 7 Dissents EditIn a lengthy dissent Justice McReynolds used an equally exhaustive analysis of quotes from members of the Constitutional Convention 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 in the entire government with the exception of judges 8 In a separate dissent Justice Brandeis wrote that the fundamental case deciding the power of the Supreme Court Marbury v Madison 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 9 In a third dissent Justice Holmes 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 10 Precedential value EditMyers was the first case to concern congressional limitations on the President s removal power 11 In 1935 in Humphrey s Executor v United States the Supreme Court distinguished Myers and disavowed its dicta 12 Humphrey s distinguished executive officers from officers occupying quasi legislative or quasi judicial positions The majority opinion stated that 13 The 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 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 In Seila Law LLC v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 2020 the Court interpreted Myers as establishing a general rule of unencumbered presidential removal authority for all executive officers 12 See also Edit United States portal Law portalFree Enterprise Fund v Public Company Accounting Oversight Board List of United States Supreme Court cases volume 272References Edit Myers 272 U S at 57 Myers 272 U S at 59 Myers 272 U S at 110 11 Myers 272 U S at 111 14 Mashaw Seila 2020 08 27 Of Angels Pins and For Cause Removal A Requiem for the Passive Virtues The University of Chicago Law Review Online Retrieved 2021 11 30 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link Myers 272 U S at 176 Mashaw Seila 2020 08 27 Of Angels Pins and For Cause Removal A Requiem for the Passive Virtues The University of Chicago Law Review Online Retrieved 2021 11 30 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link Myers 272 U S at 239 McReynolds J dissenting Myers 272 U S at 272 McReynolds J dissenting Myers 272 U S at 177 Holmes J dissenting Mashaw Seila 2020 08 27 Of Angels Pins and For Cause Removal A Requiem for the Passive Virtues The University of Chicago Law Review Online Retrieved 2021 11 30 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link a b Mashaw Seila 2020 08 27 Of Angels Pins and For Cause Removal A Requiem for the Passive Virtues The University of Chicago Law Review Online Retrieved 2021 11 30 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link Humphrey s Executor v United States 295 U S 602 1935 at p 295 External links Edit Works related to Myers v United States 272 U S 52 at Wikisource Text of Myers v United States 272 U S 52 1926 is available from Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Myers v United States amp oldid 1136361172, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
