Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Significance, Separation Of Powers Requires That The President's Removal Power Be Limited, Further Readings
Samuel F. Rathbun, as Executor of the Estate of William E. Humphrey, deceased
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
Date of Decision
27 May 1935
The Court ruled that the president did not have the power to remove an appointed official without consent from Congress.
- 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).
- John S. Williams and Clyde Manning Trials: 1921 - Peonage Outlawed, But Flourishes For 50 Years, Murdering The "evidence" Of Peonage, Southern Peonage Draws National Attention
- Home Building Loan Association v. Blaisdell - Significance, Supreme Court Finds That The Contract Clause Is Not Absolute, Size Of The Supreme Court
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Further Readings
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Significance
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Separation Of Powers Requires That The President's Removal Power Be Limited
- Other Free Encyclopedias