Petitioner
Myron Wiener
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That the court of claims erred by dismissing his suit for back salary, in thewake of his improper dismissal by the president.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
T. H. Wachtel
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
J. Lee Rankin, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Whittaker
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
30 June 1958
Decision
Wiener was improperly dismissed by the president.
Significance
The decision held that a president does not have the power to arbitrarily remove a "quasi-judicial" commissioner from office.
A "Quasi-Judicial" Body
In 1948, Congress passed the War Claims Act to provide a means of settling limited claims by internees, prisoners of war, religious organizations, and others who suffered personal injury or property damage at the hands of the enemyduring World War II. To adjudicate these claims, a three-member commission,including two attorneys, was to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the task. The appointees were to serve until the commission had finished its work. Myron Wiener was among those chosen for the commission by President Harry S. Truman. Wiener took office shortly after being confirmed by the Senate on 2 June 1950.
When Dwight D. Eisenhower succeeded Truman as president in 1953, he intendedto replace the commission with one of his own choosing. When Eisenhower askedfor the resignation of the existing commissioners, however, Myron Wiener refused, stating that he had been appointed for the life of the commission. President Eisenhower persisted, dismissing Wiener on 10 December 1953. The War Claims Commission itself lasted for less than six more months, disbanding on 1July 1954. Ironically, none of President Eisenhower's appointees took officebefore the commission was dissolved.
Feeling that he had been improperly removed from the commission, Wiener fileda suit with the court of claims, asking for back pay between the date of hisdismissal and the day the commission was abolished. His petition was denied.
When Wiener pressed his case before the U.S. Supreme Court on 18 November 1957, his appeal hinged not on the nature of his dismissal itself, but rather onmaintaining the independence of special commissions. Reviewing the Constitution and the terms of the War Claims Act, the Court could find nothing to support President Eisenhower's claim to have the power to arbitrarily remove members of "quasi-judicial" bodies. On 30 June 1958, the Court decided unanimously in Wiener's favor.
Shifting Precedents
Justice Frankfurter's written opinion cited the Wienercase's close similarity to the Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) decision. Prior to 1935, the president enjoyed unrestricted power to remove any executive branch official at will. The constitutionality of this unlimited power wasupheld by the Court in Myers v. United States (1926). In 1935, however, a later court reversed this position when President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to replace William Humphrey, a Federal Trade Commission member opposed to Roosevelt's "New Deal" economic policies. Just as Eisenhower would do later, Roosevelt cited the "national interest" as his main reason for wantingcommissioners of his own choice. The Court ruled against Roosevelt on the ground that a commissioner could only be removed for "good cause."
Frankfurter pointed out that Congress had specified regulations for removingany Federal Trade Commission official. Reasons for expulsion from the FTC included inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance while in office. No suchcharges were leveled by President Roosevelt in his attempt to remove Humphreyfrom office. In the Wiener case, no such rules even existed.
Just because Congress had not defined any terms of dismissal for the war claims commissioners, however, did not mean that such power automatically fell tothe president. The lack of a clause delegating removal power to the president, Frankfurter wrote, indicated that Congress wanted commissioners to be immune from presidential pressure. "Congress did not wish to have hang over the commission the Damocles sword of removal by the President for no reason otherthan that he preferred to have on that commission men of his own choosing."
Frankfurter recalled the distinction the 1935 Court had drawn between executive branch officials and "quasi-judicial" officers, who were not to be subjectto any outside hindrances in the performance of their duties. It was true that Wiener was appointed by a head of the executive branch; however, as soon as he took office and began to adjudicate legal matters, he was no longer subject to any executive control while fulfilling his commission.
The Court reversed the court of claims dismissal of Wiener's suit, entitlinghim to his back pay and establishing that he had been improperly removed fromoffice. While the case reflected the subtleties of the doctrine of the separation of powers between judicial and executive government bodies, it demonstrated a limit to absolute presidential control over the executive branch.
Related Cases
Justice Felix Frankfurter
Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) was among the most highly regarded jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. As a professor at Harvard Law School from 1914 to 1939, he taught a number of notable figures in the next generation, including future Secretary of State Dean Rusk. He also pioneered the studyof federal courts' jurisdiction. Even before his appointment by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the nation's highest bench in 1939, he was known as a champion of liberal causes: one of the founding members of the American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU) in 1920, Frankfurter became a prominent national figure with his critique of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial in the 1920s.
Frankfurter strongly supported Roosevelt's New Deal programs in economics, jurisprudence, and other areas; therefore his appointment to the Supreme Courton the eve of World War II was no surprise. He served on the Court for the next 23 years, until 1962, a period that spanned from the latter years of Charles Evans Hughes's chief justiceship to the early days of the Earl Warren Court. During that time, he became known for his opposition to the view of Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, that protection of free speech rights should be absolute.
Sources
Hurwitz, Howard L. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of American History. NewYork: Washington Square Press, 1974.
Myron Wiener
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That the court of claims erred by dismissing his suit for back salary, in thewake of his improper dismissal by the president.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
T. H. Wachtel
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
J. Lee Rankin, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Hugo Lafayette Black, William J. Brennan, Jr., Harold Burton, Tom C. Clark, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter (writing for the Court), John Marshall Harlan II, Earl Warren, Charles Evans Whittaker
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
30 June 1958
Decision
Wiener was improperly dismissed by the president.
Significance
The decision held that a president does not have the power to arbitrarily remove a "quasi-judicial" commissioner from office.
A "Quasi-Judicial" Body
In 1948, Congress passed the War Claims Act to provide a means of settling limited claims by internees, prisoners of war, religious organizations, and others who suffered personal injury or property damage at the hands of the enemyduring World War II. To adjudicate these claims, a three-member commission,including two attorneys, was to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate for the task. The appointees were to serve until the commission had finished its work. Myron Wiener was among those chosen for the commission by President Harry S. Truman. Wiener took office shortly after being confirmed by the Senate on 2 June 1950.
When Dwight D. Eisenhower succeeded Truman as president in 1953, he intendedto replace the commission with one of his own choosing. When Eisenhower askedfor the resignation of the existing commissioners, however, Myron Wiener refused, stating that he had been appointed for the life of the commission. President Eisenhower persisted, dismissing Wiener on 10 December 1953. The War Claims Commission itself lasted for less than six more months, disbanding on 1July 1954. Ironically, none of President Eisenhower's appointees took officebefore the commission was dissolved.
Feeling that he had been improperly removed from the commission, Wiener fileda suit with the court of claims, asking for back pay between the date of hisdismissal and the day the commission was abolished. His petition was denied.
When Wiener pressed his case before the U.S. Supreme Court on 18 November 1957, his appeal hinged not on the nature of his dismissal itself, but rather onmaintaining the independence of special commissions. Reviewing the Constitution and the terms of the War Claims Act, the Court could find nothing to support President Eisenhower's claim to have the power to arbitrarily remove members of "quasi-judicial" bodies. On 30 June 1958, the Court decided unanimously in Wiener's favor.
Shifting Precedents
Justice Frankfurter's written opinion cited the Wienercase's close similarity to the Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) decision. Prior to 1935, the president enjoyed unrestricted power to remove any executive branch official at will. The constitutionality of this unlimited power wasupheld by the Court in Myers v. United States (1926). In 1935, however, a later court reversed this position when President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to replace William Humphrey, a Federal Trade Commission member opposed to Roosevelt's "New Deal" economic policies. Just as Eisenhower would do later, Roosevelt cited the "national interest" as his main reason for wantingcommissioners of his own choice. The Court ruled against Roosevelt on the ground that a commissioner could only be removed for "good cause."
Frankfurter pointed out that Congress had specified regulations for removingany Federal Trade Commission official. Reasons for expulsion from the FTC included inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance while in office. No suchcharges were leveled by President Roosevelt in his attempt to remove Humphreyfrom office. In the Wiener case, no such rules even existed.
Just because Congress had not defined any terms of dismissal for the war claims commissioners, however, did not mean that such power automatically fell tothe president. The lack of a clause delegating removal power to the president, Frankfurter wrote, indicated that Congress wanted commissioners to be immune from presidential pressure. "Congress did not wish to have hang over the commission the Damocles sword of removal by the President for no reason otherthan that he preferred to have on that commission men of his own choosing."
Frankfurter recalled the distinction the 1935 Court had drawn between executive branch officials and "quasi-judicial" officers, who were not to be subjectto any outside hindrances in the performance of their duties. It was true that Wiener was appointed by a head of the executive branch; however, as soon as he took office and began to adjudicate legal matters, he was no longer subject to any executive control while fulfilling his commission.
The Court reversed the court of claims dismissal of Wiener's suit, entitlinghim to his back pay and establishing that he had been improperly removed fromoffice. While the case reflected the subtleties of the doctrine of the separation of powers between judicial and executive government bodies, it demonstrated a limit to absolute presidential control over the executive branch.
Related Cases
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935).
Justice Felix Frankfurter
Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965) was among the most highly regarded jurists ever to sit on the Supreme Court. As a professor at Harvard Law School from 1914 to 1939, he taught a number of notable figures in the next generation, including future Secretary of State Dean Rusk. He also pioneered the studyof federal courts' jurisdiction. Even before his appointment by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the nation's highest bench in 1939, he was known as a champion of liberal causes: one of the founding members of the American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU) in 1920, Frankfurter became a prominent national figure with his critique of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial in the 1920s.
Frankfurter strongly supported Roosevelt's New Deal programs in economics, jurisprudence, and other areas; therefore his appointment to the Supreme Courton the eve of World War II was no surprise. He served on the Court for the next 23 years, until 1962, a period that spanned from the latter years of Charles Evans Hughes's chief justiceship to the early days of the Earl Warren Court. During that time, he became known for his opposition to the view of Justices Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, that protection of free speech rights should be absolute.
Sources
Hurwitz, Howard L. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of American History. NewYork: Washington Square Press, 1974.
Further Readings
- Baker, Russell. "Dismissal Ruling Curbs President."New York Times, July 1, 1958, p. 20.
- Davis, Kenneth S. F.D.R.--The New Deal Years 1933-1937. New York:Random House, 1979.
- Hall, Kermit, ed. The Oxford Companion To The Supreme Court Of The United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
User Comments Add a comment…