Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

 

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Learning Journeys - test answers-correct.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Humphrey's Executor v. United States
Reference: 295 US 602 (1935)
Term: 1934
Important Dates
Argued: May 1, 1935
Decided: May 27, 1935
Majority
Chief Justice Charles Hughes • Willis Van Devanter • Louis Brandeis • George Sutherland • Pierce Butler • Harlan Fiske Stone • Owen Josephus Roberts • Benjamin Nathan Cardozo
Concurring
James Clark McReynolds
Dissenting
None

Humphrey's Executor v. United States was a case decided on May 27, 1935, by the United States Supreme Court. It involved the power of the President to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission for reasons other than the ones explicitly stated in the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President could not remove a commissioner for a cause other than those listed in the act, which were "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."[1]


In brief: President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked William E. Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission, to resign. When Humphrey refused, Roosevelt had him removed, though Humphrey continued to insist that this removal was unlawful. Humphrey died several months later and his estate then sued to recover the wages they claimed were due to him for the time after his removal. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the President could only remove FTC commissioners for the reasons explicitly listed in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which were "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

Why it matters:

The ruling set a precedent that the President's could not remove officers from independent federal agencies for reasons other than those listed in the relevant statutes. The court noted that administrative agencies were meant to be independent and nonpartisan, so the President generally could not remove such officers for purely political reasons.

Impact

The ruling affirmed the rights of independent agencies like the FTC to perform their duties free from direct Presidential control. Drawing on earlier decisions in Standard Oil Co. v. United States and Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, Justice Sutherland outlined a vision of administrative agencies as independent, nonpartisan entities.

“ The commission is to be nonpartisan; and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality. It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law. Its duties are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. Like the Interstate Commerce Commission, its members are called upon to exercise the trained judgment of a body of experts 'appointed by law and informed by experience.' [1][2] ”

The precedent set in Humphrey's was reaffirmed in Wiener v. United States (1958).

See also

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 FindLaw, HUMPHREY'S EX'R v. UNITED STATES, accessed November 27, 2017
  2. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
v • e
The Administrative State
MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
Pillars
Reporting
Laws
Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Cases
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
Terms
Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
Bibliography
Agencies
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Appointment_And_Removal_Power_LJCD6C&oldid=8569441"