Myers v. United States

Last updated
Myers v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 5, 1923
Reargued April 13–14, 1925
Decided October 25, 1926
Full case nameFrank S. Myers, Administratrix v. United States
Citations272 U.S. 52 ( more )
47 S. Ct. 21; 71 L. Ed. 160; 1926 U.S. LEXIS 35
Case history
PriorAppeal from the Court of Claims
The President has the exclusive authority to remove executive branch officials.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William H. Taft
Associate Justices
Oliver W. Holmes Jr.  · Willis Van Devanter
James C. McReynolds  · Louis Brandeis
George Sutherland  · Pierce Butler
Edward T. Sanford  · Harlan F. Stone
Case opinions
MajorityTaft, joined by Van Devanter, Sutherland, Butler, Sanford, Stone
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Article II, Section 2

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. [1]



In 1920, Frank S. Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson. 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.


Chief Justice William Howard Taft, writing for the Court, noted that the Constitution does mention the appointment of officials, but is silent on their dismissal. An examination of the notes of the Constitutional Convention, however, showed that this silence was 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.

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Presidential appointees and played a key role in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, to have been invalid; it had been repealed by Congress some years before this decision.


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.

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."

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.

Subsequent citation

In Humphrey's Executor v. United States in 1935, the Supreme Court distinguished between executive officers and officers occupying "quasi-legislative" or "quasi-judicial" positions, saying that "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." [2]

See also

Related Research Articles

Article Two of the United States Constitution 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.

Tenure of Office Act (1867)

The Tenure of Office Act was a United States federal law that was intended to restrict the power of the president to remove certain office-holders without the approval of the Senate. The law was enacted on March 2, 1867, over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. It purported to deny the president the power to remove any executive officer who had been appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, unless the Senate approved the removal during the next full session of Congress.

Federal government of the United States National government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major self-governing territories and several island possessions. The federal government is composed of three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the Supreme Court.

Philip Pendleton Barbour American judge

Philip Pendleton Barbour was the tenth Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only individual to serve in both positions.

An executive officer is generally a person responsible for running an organization, although the exact nature of the role varies depending on the organization. In many militaries, 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.

The doctrine of nondelegation is the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers. It is usually applied in questions of constitutionally improper delegations of powers of any of the three branches of government to either of the other, to the administrative state, or to private entities. Although it is usually constitutional for executive officials to delegate executive powers to executive branch subordinates, there can also be improper delegations of powers within an executive branch.

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 writing 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. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998), is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United States the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been duly passed by the United States Congress. The decision of the Court, in a six-to-three majority, was delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens.

Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), was a United States Supreme Court case ruling in 1983 that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949." Specifically, the ruling says that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated.

The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire 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, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine. It can be said that some favor a "strongly unitary" executive, while others favor a "weakly unitary" executive. The former group argue, for example, that Congress's power to interfere with intra-executive decision-making is limited, and that the President can control policy-making by all executive agencies within the limits set for those agencies by Congress. Still others agree that the Constitution requires a unitary executive, but believe this to be harmful, and propose its abolition by constitutional amendment. Plural executives exist in several states where, in contrast to the federal government, executive officers such as lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller, secretary of state, and others, are elected independently of the state's governor. The Executive Branch of the Texan state government is a textbook example of this type of executive structure. Another type of plural executive, used in Japan, Israel, and Sweden, though not in any US state, is one in which a collegial body composes the executive branch – however, that collegial body does not comprise multiple members elected in elections, but is rather more akin to the US Cabinet or UK Cabinet in formation and structure.

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.

Appointments Clause Clause of the U.S. Constitution granting the President the right to appoint posts with the Senates advice and consent

The Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which 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 delegate the Senate's advice and consent role when it comes to "inferior" officers.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a United States Supreme Court case decided during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, regarding the powers that a President of the United States has to remove certain executive officials of a "quasi-legislative," "quasi-judicial" administrative body created by Congress, for purely political reasons and without the consent of Congress. The Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because of certain powers it had and so the President could not fire a FTC member, William Humphrey, solely for political reasons.

MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478 (1962), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that magazines consisting largely of photographs of nude or near-nude male models are not obscene within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1461. It was the first case in which the Court engaged in plenary review of a Post Office Department order holding obscene matter "nonmailable."

John McLean American judge

John McLean was an American jurist and politician who served in the United States Congress, as U.S. Postmaster General, and as a justice of the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Courts. He was often discussed for the Whig Party nominations for President.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 28, 2010. The court held 5-4 that the method through which members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which supervises compliance with the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, are removed violates the United States Constitution's separation of powers.

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

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP was a United States Supreme Court case involving subpoenas issued by committees of the United States House of Representatives to obtain tax returns of President Donald Trump, which Trump has litigated to prevent but which had been cleared by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In a 7–2 decision issued on July 9, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the Circuit Court's decision, ruling that the court of appeal had not properly considered the separation of powers issues between Congress and the President, and remanded the case back for review. It held that courts must take into account separation of powers concerns in resolving disputes over congressional subpoenas seeking personal information of the president, and set out a number of factors for consideration in evaluating the worthiness of the such subpoena requests.

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", violates the separation of powers. The Court's 5–4 decision, issued on June 29, 2020, recognized that the directorship position was severable from the statute that established the CFPB, allowing the CFPB to continue to operate.