|Humphrey's Executor v. United States|
|Argued May 1, 1935|
Decided May 27, 1935
|Full case name||Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Rathbun v. Same|
|Citations||295 U.S. 602 (more)|
|The President may not remove any appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons that Congress has provided by law.|
|Majority||Sutherland, joined by unanimous|
|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 US Supreme Court case decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency regarding the powers of the US President has to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body created by the US Congress purely for political reasons and without the consent of Congress.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Trade Commission was a quasi-legislative body because of certain powers that it had and so the President could not fire a member, William Humphrey, solely for political reasons.
US President Herbert Hoover 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 since Roosevelt viewed that Humphrey did not support the New Deal policies vigorously enough.
Roosevelt twice requested Humphrey to resign from the FTC, but Humphrey did not yield. Finally, in 1933 Roosevelt fired Humphrey: "Effective as of this date you are hereby removed from the office of Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission." Nevertheless, Humphrey continued to come to work at the FTC even after he was formally fired. 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.
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."
The Court distinguished between executive officers and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers. 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 of certain powers it had and so the President could not fire a member solely for political reasons. Therefore, Humphrey's firing was improper.
US Attorney General Robert H. Jackson, who later joined the Supreme Court himself, said in his memoirs that Roosevelt was particularly annoyed by the Court's decision, as the President felt that it had been rendered in spite.
- The Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution
- Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311 (1903) ("In the absence of constitutional or statutory provision, the President can, by virtue of his general power of appointment, remove an officer, even though he were appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.").
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 53 (1926) ("The President is empowered by the Constitution to remove any executive officer appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and this power is not subject in its exercise to the assent of the Senate, nor can it be made so by an act of Congress.").
- Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) ("In light of these precedents, we conclude that Congress cannot reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment.").
- Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 675 (1988) ("[T]here was little or no debate on the question whether the Clause empowers Congress to provide for interbranch appointments, and there is nothing to suggest that the Framers intended to prevent Congress from having that power.").
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (2020)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 295