Appellant
Lois P. Myers, administrator of the estate of Frank S. Myers
Appellee
United States
Appellant's Claim
That President Woodrow Wilson illegally dismissed Frank Myers from his job aspostmaster, and Myers was owed back pay.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Will R. King, Martin L. Pipes
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
James M. Beck, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Pierce Butler, Edward Terry Sanford, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland, William Howard Taft (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter
Justices Dissenting
Louis D. Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, James Clark McReynolds
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 October 1926
Decision
The Court held that the executive branch had the right to remove federal employees and it affirmed the decision by the U.S. Court of Claims to deny Myersany back pay.
Significance
Myers was the first major case that addressed a president's constitutional right to remove executive officials without the consent of Congress. Inits decision, the Supreme Court gave the president broad removal powers.
In 1876, Congress passed a law giving the Senate the authority to approve thepresident's appointment and removal of postmasters. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson named Frank Myers a postmaster in Portland, Oregon. Under the termsof the 1876 law, Myers should have served a four-year term as postmaster. But three years later, Wilson dismissed Myers from the job without obtaining the Senate's consent. Myers petitioned the U.S. Court of Claims, saying his dismissal was illegal, and he asked for more than $8,000 in back pay, the moneyhe would have earned his last year as postmaster. The court denied his petition, saying Myers had waited too long to file his suit.
Myers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but he died before the casewas decided. His wife Lois, as administrator of his estate, took his place as the appellant. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Myers was not owed the money. The Court disagreed that Myers had taken too long to file his claim; instead, it ruled on the constitutionality of the 1876 law.
History of Appointment and Removal Powers
The Constitution spells out the appointment process, giving the president thepower to name ambassadors, judges, and other public officials, with the Senate's approval. But except for impeachment, the Constitution does not addressremoving appointed officials. In 1789, the first Congress wrestled with thissituation as it tried to establish the practical operation of the new federalgovernment. James Madison proposed setting up an executive office to handleforeign affairs; the secretary of this office would be confirmed by the Senate, but the president would have the authority to remove the secretary withoutthe Senate's consent. The so-called "Decision of 1789" said that the president had an inherent power of removal--one not specifically granted in the Constitution, but implied. For more than 70 years, Congress did not challenge this right in any meaningful way.
During the Reconstruction Era, however, Congress was eager to assert its power at the expense of President Andrew Johnson. The president opposed the plansof the "Radical Republicans" who controlled Congress. One of Johnson's own cabinet members, Edwin M. Stanton, was a vocal supporter of the laws Johnson fought. To thwart any attempt by Johnson to fire Stanton, Congress passed theTenure of Office Act in 1867. The law forced a president to seek Senate approval before removing a cabinet member. Johnson thought the law was unconstitutional and defied it, removing Stanton and naming a replacement. Stanton, meanwhile, refused to step down from his position. He barricaded himself in his office, cooking meals there and conferring with his congressional allies.
Johnson's defiance of the Tenure of Office Act led to his impeachment in theHouse of Representatives. At Johnson's trial in the Senate, he was acquittedby just one vote. The constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act was nevertested, and the law was repealed in 1887. But before that repeal, Congress passed the act regulating the removal of postmasters, and that law brought theremoval issue in front of the Supreme Court.
A Former President Defends Presidential Powers
Chief Justice Taft wrote the Court's decision in Myers. Taft, when hehad served as president from 1909-1913, had generally accepted constitutionallimits on a president's power. But his decision in this case asserted broadremoval powers for the chief executive.
Taft used the Decision of 1789 as the foundation for his opinion. He remarkedthat many of the members of that first Congress had been at the Constitutional Convention and so understood the framers' intent. Congress had set a precedent with its interpretation of the president's removal powers, and althoughthe Court was not bound to accept it, Taft did. He said that the 1867 Tenureof Office Act had been unconstitutional, and so was the 1876 law regarding postmasters.
Taft wrote that the president, as chief executive, had to carry out the nation's laws. Though the Constitution did not explicitly say so, the president had an inherent power to appoint subordinates who would help him in his executive duty. Taft also saw another inherent power:
Without the ability to remove an appointee on his own, the president lacked atool for enforcing discipline among his subordinates. Removal powers gave the president an effective, immediate level of control as he performed his dutyof executing the nation's laws. Congressional limits on that power violatedthe notion of separation of powers between the three branches of the federalgovernment.
Three Strong Dissents
Each of the three justices who opposed the Myers decision had separate, but similar concerns. Justice McReynolds feared the Court went too far by giving the executive branch independent power to remove federal employees. Congress has constitutional authority to appoint and remove "inferior officers"without the president's input. McReynolds said if Congress could appoint lesser officials, it should also be able to limit their removal.
Justice Holmes argued that the position of postmaster was created by Congressand should be dissolved by Congress. The Court's ruling defined the president's executive powers too broadly. "The duty of the president to see that thelaws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him toachieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power."
Finally, Justice Brandeis distinguished between the president's removal powers regarding higher and lower offices. Removing an inferior officer--such as apostmaster--was not "an essential of government." Congress also had an obligation to protect the rights of federal employees. While Taft stressed separation of powers, Brandeis looked more to the idea of checks and balances; Congress should "preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose [of separation of powers] was, not to avoid friction, but by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among the threedepartments, to save the people from autocracy."
Nine years later, the Court did take back some of the broad presidential removal powers granted in Myers. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States the Court said Congress had the right to approve the removal of government officials whose jobs were not purely related to executive duties.
Related Cases
William Howard Taft
William Howard Taft (1857-1930) was the only American to hold the offices ofpresident of the United States (1909-13) and chief justice of the Supreme Court (1921-30.) As president, he appointed more Supreme Court justices, proportionately, than anyone before or since: six in a single four-year term. As chief justice of the Supreme Court, he was not noted for his opinions, but he introduced several significant changes in how the Court operated.
Taft graduated from Yale in 1878 as salutatorian and earned top honors at Cincinnati Law School in 1880. In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison appointed him solicitor general of the United States, and, in 1892, he became a federal judge. President William McKinley appointed Taft chairman of a special commission to the Philippines in 1900, and, in 1904, he became secretary of war under Roosevelt. In 1908, he won election as president over Democrat William Jennings Bryan.
In 1921, Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding. Although his was the era of Prohibition and other weighty legal concerns, his primary successes as chief justice were administrative. InFebruary of 1930, Taft retired from the Court at age 73. He died a month later.
Sources
The National Cyclopedia of American Biography Volume XXIII. New York:James T. White, 1933.
Lois P. Myers, administrator of the estate of Frank S. Myers
Appellee
United States
Appellant's Claim
That President Woodrow Wilson illegally dismissed Frank Myers from his job aspostmaster, and Myers was owed back pay.
Chief Lawyers for Appellant
Will R. King, Martin L. Pipes
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
James M. Beck, U.S. Solicitor General
Justices for the Court
Pierce Butler, Edward Terry Sanford, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland, William Howard Taft (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter
Justices Dissenting
Louis D. Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, James Clark McReynolds
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
25 October 1926
Decision
The Court held that the executive branch had the right to remove federal employees and it affirmed the decision by the U.S. Court of Claims to deny Myersany back pay.
Significance
Myers was the first major case that addressed a president's constitutional right to remove executive officials without the consent of Congress. Inits decision, the Supreme Court gave the president broad removal powers.
In 1876, Congress passed a law giving the Senate the authority to approve thepresident's appointment and removal of postmasters. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson named Frank Myers a postmaster in Portland, Oregon. Under the termsof the 1876 law, Myers should have served a four-year term as postmaster. But three years later, Wilson dismissed Myers from the job without obtaining the Senate's consent. Myers petitioned the U.S. Court of Claims, saying his dismissal was illegal, and he asked for more than $8,000 in back pay, the moneyhe would have earned his last year as postmaster. The court denied his petition, saying Myers had waited too long to file his suit.
Myers appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, but he died before the casewas decided. His wife Lois, as administrator of his estate, took his place as the appellant. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Myers was not owed the money. The Court disagreed that Myers had taken too long to file his claim; instead, it ruled on the constitutionality of the 1876 law.
History of Appointment and Removal Powers
The Constitution spells out the appointment process, giving the president thepower to name ambassadors, judges, and other public officials, with the Senate's approval. But except for impeachment, the Constitution does not addressremoving appointed officials. In 1789, the first Congress wrestled with thissituation as it tried to establish the practical operation of the new federalgovernment. James Madison proposed setting up an executive office to handleforeign affairs; the secretary of this office would be confirmed by the Senate, but the president would have the authority to remove the secretary withoutthe Senate's consent. The so-called "Decision of 1789" said that the president had an inherent power of removal--one not specifically granted in the Constitution, but implied. For more than 70 years, Congress did not challenge this right in any meaningful way.
During the Reconstruction Era, however, Congress was eager to assert its power at the expense of President Andrew Johnson. The president opposed the plansof the "Radical Republicans" who controlled Congress. One of Johnson's own cabinet members, Edwin M. Stanton, was a vocal supporter of the laws Johnson fought. To thwart any attempt by Johnson to fire Stanton, Congress passed theTenure of Office Act in 1867. The law forced a president to seek Senate approval before removing a cabinet member. Johnson thought the law was unconstitutional and defied it, removing Stanton and naming a replacement. Stanton, meanwhile, refused to step down from his position. He barricaded himself in his office, cooking meals there and conferring with his congressional allies.
Johnson's defiance of the Tenure of Office Act led to his impeachment in theHouse of Representatives. At Johnson's trial in the Senate, he was acquittedby just one vote. The constitutionality of the Tenure of Office Act was nevertested, and the law was repealed in 1887. But before that repeal, Congress passed the act regulating the removal of postmasters, and that law brought theremoval issue in front of the Supreme Court.
A Former President Defends Presidential Powers
Chief Justice Taft wrote the Court's decision in Myers. Taft, when hehad served as president from 1909-1913, had generally accepted constitutionallimits on a president's power. But his decision in this case asserted broadremoval powers for the chief executive.
Taft used the Decision of 1789 as the foundation for his opinion. He remarkedthat many of the members of that first Congress had been at the Constitutional Convention and so understood the framers' intent. Congress had set a precedent with its interpretation of the president's removal powers, and althoughthe Court was not bound to accept it, Taft did. He said that the 1867 Tenureof Office Act had been unconstitutional, and so was the 1876 law regarding postmasters.
Taft wrote that the president, as chief executive, had to carry out the nation's laws. Though the Constitution did not explicitly say so, the president had an inherent power to appoint subordinates who would help him in his executive duty. Taft also saw another inherent power:
The further implication must be, in the absence of any express limitation respecting removals,that as his selection of administrative officers is essential to the execution of the laws by him, so must be his power for removing those for whom he cannot continue to be responsible . . . A veto by the Senate--a part of the legislative branch of the government--upon removals is a much greater limitationupon the executive branch, and a much more serious blending of the legislative with the executive, than a rejection of a proposed appointment. It is not to be implied.
Without the ability to remove an appointee on his own, the president lacked atool for enforcing discipline among his subordinates. Removal powers gave the president an effective, immediate level of control as he performed his dutyof executing the nation's laws. Congressional limits on that power violatedthe notion of separation of powers between the three branches of the federalgovernment.
Three Strong Dissents
Each of the three justices who opposed the Myers decision had separate, but similar concerns. Justice McReynolds feared the Court went too far by giving the executive branch independent power to remove federal employees. Congress has constitutional authority to appoint and remove "inferior officers"without the president's input. McReynolds said if Congress could appoint lesser officials, it should also be able to limit their removal.
Justice Holmes argued that the position of postmaster was created by Congressand should be dissolved by Congress. The Court's ruling defined the president's executive powers too broadly. "The duty of the president to see that thelaws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him toachieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power."
Finally, Justice Brandeis distinguished between the president's removal powers regarding higher and lower offices. Removing an inferior officer--such as apostmaster--was not "an essential of government." Congress also had an obligation to protect the rights of federal employees. While Taft stressed separation of powers, Brandeis looked more to the idea of checks and balances; Congress should "preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose [of separation of powers] was, not to avoid friction, but by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of the governmental powers among the threedepartments, to save the people from autocracy."
Nine years later, the Court did take back some of the broad presidential removal powers granted in Myers. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States the Court said Congress had the right to approve the removal of government officials whose jobs were not purely related to executive duties.
Related Cases
- Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925).
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935).
- Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).
- Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958).
- Schick v. Reed, 419 U.S. 256 (1974).
William Howard Taft
William Howard Taft (1857-1930) was the only American to hold the offices ofpresident of the United States (1909-13) and chief justice of the Supreme Court (1921-30.) As president, he appointed more Supreme Court justices, proportionately, than anyone before or since: six in a single four-year term. As chief justice of the Supreme Court, he was not noted for his opinions, but he introduced several significant changes in how the Court operated.
Taft graduated from Yale in 1878 as salutatorian and earned top honors at Cincinnati Law School in 1880. In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison appointed him solicitor general of the United States, and, in 1892, he became a federal judge. President William McKinley appointed Taft chairman of a special commission to the Philippines in 1900, and, in 1904, he became secretary of war under Roosevelt. In 1908, he won election as president over Democrat William Jennings Bryan.
In 1921, Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding. Although his was the era of Prohibition and other weighty legal concerns, his primary successes as chief justice were administrative. InFebruary of 1930, Taft retired from the Court at age 73. He died a month later.
Sources
The National Cyclopedia of American Biography Volume XXIII. New York:James T. White, 1933.
User Comments Add a comment…