Appellant
Samuel F. Rathbun, as Executor of the Estate of William E. Humphrey, deceased
Appellee
United States
Appellant's Claim
That the president cannot remove an appointed commissioner without just cause.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
William J. Donovan
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Attorney General Homer S. Cummings, Solicitor General Stanley F. Reed
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, Pierce Butler, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Charles Evans Hughes,James Clark McReynolds, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 May 1935
Decision
The Court ruled that the president did not have the power to remove an appointed official without consent from Congress.
Significance
President Franklin Roosevelt was so angered by Supreme Court challenges to his authority--and by Humphrey's Executor in particular--that he developed a plan to "pack" the Court with his own appointees as part of his effort to institute New Deal economic reforms.
In 1931, Herbert Hoover nominated William E. Humphrey to succeed him as a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission after Hoover was elected president.Humphrey was duly confirmed by the Senate. He was to serve a term of seven years. However, on 25 July 1933, Hoover's successor as chief executive, Franklin Roosevelt, sent Humphrey a letter requesting his resignation. The letter did not find fault with Humphrey's performance, and it was widely believed that Roosevelt simply wanted to replace the commissioner with someone more in tune with his program of economic reform. When Humphrey refused to resign, Roosevelt exercised the power granted him by Article II of the Constitution and removed him from office.
Humphrey did not acquiesce in this decision but continued to insist that he was still a member of the commission, entitled to perform the duties and to receive the salary of a commissioner. He brought suit in the court of claims, acourt created to hear claims against the federal government, seeking back wages. After he died, the executor of his estate carried on his suit, which thecourt of claims referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Separation of Powers Requires That the President's Removal Power Be Limited
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sutherland noted that the Federal Trade Commission was a creation of Congress, and that although the commissionerswere appointed by the president, they performed duties which were both legislative and judicial. Therefore, Sutherland concluded, the commissioners must be beyond the control of the executive branch, otherwise, the doctrine of theseparation of powers, which divides government into three coequal but separate branches, would be violated. Roosevelt had, in the Court's view, clearly violated this separation in discharging Humphrey without good cause:
Roosevelt believed that in removing Humphrey from office, he was acting according to legal precedent set by the Court itself. In Myers v. United States (1926), the Court had ruled that it was within the president's power toremove a postmaster--an executive branch appointee--from office for almost any reason. Now, however, the Court distinguished a postmaster from a trade commissioner, saying that Myers had concerned a political appointee whoseresponsibilities were solely executive in nature.
Roosevelt was irate. To his way of thinking, the majority of justices then sitting on the Court were splitting hairs in an effort to thwart him and his New Deal agenda of economic reforms, with which he intended to lift the countryout of the Great Depression. Not long after Humphrey's Executor was handed down, Roosevelt developed a plan to "pack" the Court with additional justices whom he would appoint. Although Congress defeated this plan to increase the size of the Court in 1937, by then Roosevelt had exerted enough pressure on the Court to compel some of its more conservative members to resign. Over the next few years, he was able to appoint a total of eight justices. Aftermid-1937, the Court upheld every major piece of New Deal legislation it wasasked to consider. Roosevelt paid a price for his victory, however, losing the faith of many Democratic supporters who believed that Roosevelt himself hadviolated the separation of powers doctrine by playing politics with the Supreme Court.
Related Cases
Samuel F. Rathbun, as Executor of the Estate of William E. Humphrey, deceased
Appellee
United States
Appellant's Claim
That the president cannot remove an appointed commissioner without just cause.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
William J. Donovan
Chief Lawyers for Appellee
Attorney General Homer S. Cummings, Solicitor General Stanley F. Reed
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis, Pierce Butler, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Charles Evans Hughes,James Clark McReynolds, Owen Josephus Roberts, Harlan Fiske Stone, George Sutherland (writing for the Court), Willis Van Devanter
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
27 May 1935
Decision
The Court ruled that the president did not have the power to remove an appointed official without consent from Congress.
Significance
President Franklin Roosevelt was so angered by Supreme Court challenges to his authority--and by Humphrey's Executor in particular--that he developed a plan to "pack" the Court with his own appointees as part of his effort to institute New Deal economic reforms.
In 1931, Herbert Hoover nominated William E. Humphrey to succeed him as a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission after Hoover was elected president.Humphrey was duly confirmed by the Senate. He was to serve a term of seven years. However, on 25 July 1933, Hoover's successor as chief executive, Franklin Roosevelt, sent Humphrey a letter requesting his resignation. The letter did not find fault with Humphrey's performance, and it was widely believed that Roosevelt simply wanted to replace the commissioner with someone more in tune with his program of economic reform. When Humphrey refused to resign, Roosevelt exercised the power granted him by Article II of the Constitution and removed him from office.
Humphrey did not acquiesce in this decision but continued to insist that he was still a member of the commission, entitled to perform the duties and to receive the salary of a commissioner. He brought suit in the court of claims, acourt created to hear claims against the federal government, seeking back wages. After he died, the executor of his estate carried on his suit, which thecourt of claims referred to the Supreme Court for adjudication.
Separation of Powers Requires That the President's Removal Power Be Limited
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Sutherland noted that the Federal Trade Commission was a creation of Congress, and that although the commissionerswere appointed by the president, they performed duties which were both legislative and judicial. Therefore, Sutherland concluded, the commissioners must be beyond the control of the executive branch, otherwise, the doctrine of theseparation of powers, which divides government into three coequal but separate branches, would be violated. Roosevelt had, in the Court's view, clearly violated this separation in discharging Humphrey without good cause:
We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of . . . quasi legislative or quasi judicial agencies . . . For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter's will.
Roosevelt believed that in removing Humphrey from office, he was acting according to legal precedent set by the Court itself. In Myers v. United States (1926), the Court had ruled that it was within the president's power toremove a postmaster--an executive branch appointee--from office for almost any reason. Now, however, the Court distinguished a postmaster from a trade commissioner, saying that Myers had concerned a political appointee whoseresponsibilities were solely executive in nature.
Roosevelt was irate. To his way of thinking, the majority of justices then sitting on the Court were splitting hairs in an effort to thwart him and his New Deal agenda of economic reforms, with which he intended to lift the countryout of the Great Depression. Not long after Humphrey's Executor was handed down, Roosevelt developed a plan to "pack" the Court with additional justices whom he would appoint. Although Congress defeated this plan to increase the size of the Court in 1937, by then Roosevelt had exerted enough pressure on the Court to compel some of its more conservative members to resign. Over the next few years, he was able to appoint a total of eight justices. Aftermid-1937, the Court upheld every major piece of New Deal legislation it wasasked to consider. Roosevelt paid a price for his victory, however, losing the faith of many Democratic supporters who believed that Roosevelt himself hadviolated the separation of powers doctrine by playing politics with the Supreme Court.
Related Cases
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926).
- A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935).
- United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).
- Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958).
User Comments Add a comment…