Humphrey's Executor v. United States

Last updated

Humphrey's Executor v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued May 1, 1935
Decided May 27, 1935
Full case nameHumphrey's Executor v. United States
Rathbun, Executor v. United States
Citations295 U.S. 602 ( more )
55 S. Ct. 869; 79 L. Ed. 1611; 1935 U.S. LEXIS 1089
Holding
The President may not remove any appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons that Congress has provided by law.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Charles E. Hughes
Associate Justices
Willis Van Devanter  · James C. McReynolds
Louis Brandeis  · George Sutherland
Pierce Butler  · Harlan F. Stone
Owen Roberts  · Benjamin N. Cardozo
Case opinion
MajoritySutherland, joined by unanimous
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art. I; U.S. Const. art. II; Federal Trade Commission Act

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court of the United States case decided regarding whether the United States President has the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court held that the President did not have this power. However, Humphrey's has been distinguished by Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . In Seila, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's as holding that Congress may occasionally create independent agencies with removal only for cause if such agencies share the characteristics of the FTC in 1935.

Contents

Background

President Calvin Coolidge appointed William Humphrey as a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1925, and Humphrey was reappointed for another six-year term in 1931. After Roosevelt took office in 1933, he became dissatisfied with Humphrey and viewed him as inadequately supportive of the New Deal. [1]

Roosevelt twice requested Humphrey to resign from the FTC, but Humphrey did not yield. Finally, in 1933 Roosevelt fired Humphrey. Nevertheless, Humphrey continued to come to work at the FTC even after he was formally fired. [1] However, the Federal Trade Commission Act permitted the President to dismiss an FTC member only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Roosevelt's decision to dismiss Humphrey was based solely on political differences, rather than job performance or alleged acts of malfeasance. [2]

Decision

The case went to the Supreme Court, but Humphrey died in 1934 before the case could be decided. The case was then pursued by the executors of his estate and so it obtained the title "Humphrey's Executor." [2]

The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. The Court held that the latter may be removed only with procedures consistent with statutory conditions enacted by Congress, but the former serve at the pleasure of the President and may be removed at his discretion. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because it adjudicated cases and promulgated rules. Thus, the President could not fire a member solely for political reasons. Therefore, Humphrey's firing was improper. [2]

William Humphrey died before the Supreme Court could rule on whether his dismissal by the President from the Federal Trade Commission was valid. WilliamEHumphrey.jpg
William Humphrey died before the Supreme Court could rule on whether his dismissal by the President from the Federal Trade Commission was valid.

During its analysis, the Court distinguished Myers v. United States and rejected its dicta that the President has unencumbered removal powers. [3]

Aftermath

US Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, who later joined the Supreme Court himself, stated in his memoirs that Roosevelt was particularly annoyed by the Court's decision and felt that it had been rendered in spite.[ citation needed ]

Humphrey's was distinguished in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) [4] in which Chief Justice Roberts narrowly construed Humphrey's [5] to stand for the proposition that the President's removal power may be constrained by Congress if the officer in question was a member of an agency that shared the same characteristics as the Federal Trade Commission in 1935. [4] However, scholars argue that no such agency currently exists because none existed when Humphrey's was decided since the Court misconstrued the FTC's powers at the time. [3] [5]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Two of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the executive branch

Article Two of the United States Constitution establishes the executive branch of the federal government, which carries out and enforces federal laws. Article Two vests the power of the executive branch in the office of the president of the United States, lays out the procedures for electing and removing the president, and establishes the president's powers and responsibilities.

In the United States government, independent agencies are agencies that exist outside the federal executive departments and the Executive Office of the President. In a narrower sense, the term refers only to those independent agencies that, while considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.

A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated regulations of the poultry industry according to the nondelegation doctrine and as an invalid use of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause. This was a unanimous decision that rendered parts of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA), a main component of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, unconstitutional. The case from which the ruling stemmed was nicknamed the "Sick Chicken Case".

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.

An executive officer is a person who is principally responsible for leading all or part of an organization, although the exact nature of the role varies depending on the organization. In many militaries and police forces, an executive officer, or "XO", is the second-in-command, reporting to the commanding officer. The XO is typically responsible for the management of day-to-day activities, freeing the commander to concentrate on strategy and planning the unit's next move.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that determined the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. Morrison also set important precedent determining the scope of Congress's ability to encumber the President's authority to remove Officers of the United States from office. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court distinguished Morrison as a narrow exception applying only to inferior officers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Separation of powers under the United States Constitution</span> Overview of the separation of powers under the United States Constitution

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William E. Humphrey</span> American politician

William Ewart Humphrey was an American politician who served as a member of the United States House of Representatives from 1903 to 1917. He represented the state of Washington at large from 1903 to 1909 and the First Congressional District of Washington from 1909 to 1917. Humphrey also served as a member of the Federal Trade Commission from 1925 to 1933.

The unitary executive theory is a normative theory of United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive Power" of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted among legal scholars, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine. Calbresi and Yoo (2008) described the unitary executive theory as ensuring “… the federal government will execute the law in a consistent manner and in accordance with the president’s wishes.” This stands in contrast to other scholarly literature that stresses the fact that federal employees have to faithfully execute the laws enacted according to the process proscribed in the U.S. Constitution.

Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case that struck down the Gramm–Rudman–Hollings Act as an unconstitutional usurpation of executive power by Congress because the law empowered Congress to terminate the United States Comptroller General for certain specified reasons, including "inefficiency, 'neglect of duty,' or 'malfeasance.'" The named defendant in the original case was Comptroller General Charles Arthur Bowsher and the constitutional challenge was brought forth by Oklahoma Congressman Mike Synar.

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law invest the appointment of "inferior" officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), was a 5–4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.

Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled the Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This unanimous decision was one of the Court's many rulings that overturned President Roosevelt's New Deal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</span> United States government agency

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding, the CFPB has used technology tools to monitor how financial entities used social media and algorithms to target consumers.

The New Deal often encountered heavy criticism, and had many constitutional challenges.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.

Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The case follows on the Court's prior ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which found that the establishing structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers; the FHFA shares a similar structure as the CFPB. The case extends the legal challenge to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.

The Decision of 1789 refers to a month-long constitutional debate that occurred during the first session of the United States House of Representatives as to whether Article Two of the United States Constitution granted the president the power to remove officers of the United States at will. It has been called "the first significant legislative construction of the Constitution". The debate centered around "a bill that would create a Department of Foreign Affairs"—the precursor to the Department of State—and which branch of government would have the power to remove officers from that department.

References

  1. 1 2 McKenna, Marian C. (2002). Franklin Roosevelt and the Great Constitutional War: The Court-Packing Crisis of 1937. Fordham University Press. pp. 96–99. ISBN   0-8232-2154-7.
  2. 1 2 3 Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935).
  3. 1 2 Mashaw, Seila (August 27, 2020). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  4. 1 2 Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2199–200.
  5. 1 2 Sitaraman, Ganesh (2020). "The Political Economy of the Removal Power". Harvard Law Review. 134: 381.