Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
Five pillars of the administrative state: Executive control
| What are the five pillars of the administrative state? Ballotpedia's five pillars of the administrative state provide a framework for understanding the authority, influence, and actions of administrative agencies, as well as the policies and arguments surrounding them. The five pillars focus on the control of administrative agencies related to the (1) legislative, (2) executive, and (3) judicial branches of government, (4) the public, and (5) other agencies or sub-agencies. |
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Executive control |
|
•Court cases |
| More pillars |
| •Agency control • Executive control •Judicial control • Legislative control • Public control |
| Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
|
| Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker. |
Executive control of agencies is one of five pillars used to understand Ballotpedia's coverage of the administrative state. It focuses on the balance of power between administrative agencies and the executive branch.
Executive control is a central concept in the debate over the nature and scope of the administrative state. It involves three primary components: appointment and removal power, executive review of agency rules, and legislative review of executive actions. The appointment and removal power is the authority of an executive to appoint and remove officials in the various branches of government. Executive review of agency rules mandates that the governor or another part of the executive branch review all agency rules.
This article includes information about the following topics:
Key terms related to executive control of the administrative state: This section contains important terms and definitions related to the executive control of the administrative state.
Key laws and court cases related to executive control of the administrative state: This section contains important laws and policies related to the executive control of the administrative state.
- Court cases : This section contains significant court rulings related to the executive control of the administrative state.
- Federal laws: This section contains key federal policies regarding executive control of the administrative state.
- State laws: This section contains a 50-state survey of constitutions and administrative procedures acts (APAs) to see how each state approaches executive control of the administrative state.
Recent legislation related to executive control of the administrative state: This section tracks recent legislation by states about the executive control of the administrative state.
Reform proposals related to executive control of the administrative state: This section contains reform proposals related to the executive control of the administrative state.
Major arguments about the executive control of the administrative state: This section contains key arguments about the executive control of the administrative state.
A timeline of executive control: This section contains a timeline of significant events related to executive control of the administrative state.
Scholarly work related to executive control of administrative agencies: This section contains important legal doctrines related to executive control of the administrative state.
- See also: Glossary of administrative state terms
This section features a list of significant terms related to executive control of the administrative state.
- Appointment and removal power in administrative law refers to the authority of an executive, such as a governor or president, to appoint or remove officials within the executive branch or other agencies under its jurisdiction.
- Executive branch reorganization authority grants the executive the power to restructure the organization, responsibilities, and operations of executive agencies to align with policy goals or improve efficiency.
- Executive review of agency rules requires the executive branch, typically the governor, to review and approve agency rules to ensure they align with the administration’s priorities and comply with statutory authority.
This section features a list of significant laws and court cases related to executive control of the administrative state, as well as a 50-state survey related to executive deference.
This section contains important legal doctrines related to executive control of the administrative state.
- Myers v. United States (1926) affirmed the president's authority to remove executive officers without Senate consent, underscoring the president’s central control over executive branch administration.
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) defined the limits of presidential removal power by distinguishing independent regulatory agencies with quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, providing a key balance between independence and executive oversight.
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010) struck down dual-layer removal protections, strengthening the president's direct control over officers by affirming the importance of accountability in the executive branch.
- Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) reinforced the president’s appointment and removal power by declaring the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional due to its single-director design with removal protections.
- Collins v. Yellen (2021) held that removal restrictions on the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency violated separation of powers, affirming the president’s authority to oversee executive officers.
For a full list of court cases related to the administrative state, click here.
This section contains important legal doctrines related to executive control of the administrative state.
- Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is a federal law passed in 1946 that establishes the framework for agency rulemaking, which the executive oversees, and defines processes for executive influence and control over administrative actions.
- Congressional Review Act (CRA) is a federal law that strengthens executive oversight of agency rules. It allows Congress to challenge agency rules through a joint resolution of disapproval, but the president’s veto power enables the executive to protect rules aligned with the administration’s policy goals, reinforcing control over the regulatory process.
For a full list of laws related to the administrative state, click here.
A 50-state survey of the administrative state: Each of the 50 states has its own state-level Administrative Procedures Act and, of course, a constitution, several of which have stronger or weaker provisions for empowering or reining in the administrative state at the state level.
The following links contain components of the 50-state survey related to executive control of the administrative state.
- Executive control of agencies: A 50-state survey
- Executive control of agencies: Organization of state administrative law judges
- Executive control of agencies: State executive removal power over agency officials
- Executive control of agencies: State hiring or appointment of administrative law judges
- Executive control of agencies: States with elected cabinet members
- See also: Administrative State Legislation Tracker
Ballotpedia’s Administrative State Legislation Tracker identified proposed and enacted bills in 2024 and 2025 related to the administrative state. This section tracks recent legislation bills related to executive control of the administrative state. To see all proposed legislation related to executive control, click here.
Ballotpedia has tracked two major types of legislation categories related to executive control:
- Appointment and removal power: These bills modify the governor’s authority to appoint or remove state executive officials, most often concerning requirements for senate confirmation. These bills may also call for the election of previously appointed officials, or vice versa.
- Executive review of agency rules: These bills require part of the executive branch of government (usually the governor) to review all agency rules.
This map shows all enacted legislation from 2024 or 2025 related to 1) appointment and removal power and 2) executive review of agency rules. To find out more about these bills, click here.[1]
Appointment and removal power legislation
This legislative approach addresses appointment and removal power, which involves the executive’s authority to appoint or remove state executive officials. Proposals may also call for the election of previously appointed officials, or vice versa. To see all proposed legislation related to appointment and removal power, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to appointment and removal power in 2024 and 2025. (click on a bill for more information):[2]
Executive review of agency rules legislation
This legislative approach focuses on the executive's authority to review agency rules, which involves the power to evaluate, approve, or veto rules issued by administrative agencies. Proposals may also seek to modify the scope or procedures of executive review, such as requiring additional oversight or limiting the executive's ability to intervene. To see all proposed legislation related to the executive review of agency rules, click here.
This section lists enacted legislation related to the executive review of agency rules in 2024 and 2025. (click on a bill for more information):[3]
Ballotpedia has identified four major types of reform categories related to executive control:
- Appointment and removal authority: This reform category includes proposals that adjust who has the authority to appoint or remove officials within administrative agencies.
- Executive regulatory oversight: This category includes reforms aimed at increasing executive oversight and control over federal agency regulatory processes.
- Broader executive authority: This category encompasses reform ideas designed to expand presidential and gubernatorial control over broader aspects of executive branch management and coordination.
- State executive oversight: This reform category includes the oversight of administrative agencies by state executive officials through mechanisms such as review processes, reporting requirements, or approval authority.
Major arguments about the executive control of the administrative state
This section contains key arguments about the executive control of the administrative state.
Arguments in favor of strong executive appointment and removal power
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Strong executive appointment and removal powers promote good government
- Claim: The removal power allows presidents to control administrative agencies
- Claim: The appointment power allows presidents to control administrative agencies
- Claim: Presidents have a better perspective on when officers should be removed than the Senate
- Claim: Presidential removal powers make the president accountable to the people
- Claim: At will tenure for agency officials helps courts promote stability and good government
- Claim: Bureaucrats insulated from the threat of presidential removal might become less motivated
- Claim: Presidents and other executives can implement their agendas if they do not face appointment or removal power restrictions
- Claim: Partisan balance requirements can limit agency effectiveness
2. Argument: Strong presidential removal power honors the original constitutional design
- Claim: Restrictions on the presidential removal power change the balance of powers under the U.S. Constitution
- Claim: Restrictions on the president’s appointment or removal power are unconstitutional
- Claim: It is a mistake to imply restraints on presidential control of agencies where the law is silent
Arguments against strong executive appointment and removal power
- Click the arrow (▼) in the list below to see claims under each argument.
1. Argument: Restrictions on the executive appointment and removal power promote good government
- Claim: Allowing the Senate to serve as a check on the president’s removal power would promote consistency in the administration of federal laws
- Claim: Requiring presidents to have good cause before removing officials promotes technical expertise and non-political administration of the laws
- Claim: Prescribing tenure of office for agency officials yields better administration of laws
- Claim: Partisan balance requirements for agency officials yield better results
- Claim: Restrictions on presidential control of agencies make officers more responsible for decisions
- Claim: Insulating agencies from at-will removal by the president slows the expansion of executive power
- Claim: Removal power is not an effective way for presidents to exercise political control over agencies
- Claim: Judicial interventions that promote the removal power can be harmful for democratic accountability
- Claim: Strong removal power is not required for the president to control agencies
- Claim: Exercising strong removal power can have political costs for the president
- Claim: Even though some statutes governing the president’s appointment and removal powers might violate the original understanding of that power, they are supported by longstanding congressional and presidential practice
- Claim: Restrictions on the removal power recognize that the federal government has to change with the times in order to promote efficiency and prevent tyranny
3. Argument: Restrictions on presidential appointment and removal powers are constitutional
A timeline of executive control
This section contains a timeline of significant events related to executive control of the administrative state. For a full timeline related to executive control, click here.
- September 17, 1787
The U.S. Constitution vested executive power in the president, including the authority to appoint officers with Senate consent, as stated in Article II, section 1.
- August 7, 1789
In the Decision of 1789, Congress granted the president exclusive power to remove certain officers, initiating debates over the constitutional dimensions of executive authority.[4]
- March 2, 1867
Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, which required Senate consent for presidential removals. The law was repealed in 1887 and later ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.[5]
- December 6, 1926
In Myers v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that requiring Senate approval for removing postmasters was unconstitutional, affirming the president’s removal power.[6]
- March 29, 1935
In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld restrictions on presidential removal of independent regulatory officers.[7]
This page contains briefs on scholarly works related to the executive control of administrative agencies covered on Ballotpedia. For a list of scholarly work related to executive control, click here.
Explore more pillars
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Agency control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Judicial control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Legislative control
- Five pillars of the administrative state: Public control
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ Ballotpedia Legislation, "Search results for enacted/adopted administrative state bills (2024–2025 sessions)", accessed June 2, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: Appointment and removal power," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Ballotpedia Administrative State Legislation Tracker, "Bill search: Executive review of agency rules," accessed on January 28, 2025
- ↑ Stanford Law Review, “Removal as a Political Question,” 2013
- ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica, “Tenure of Office Act,” accessed August 20, 2019
- ↑ JUSTIA, “Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926),” accessed August 21, 2019
- ↑ JUSTIA, “Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935),” accessed August 21, 2019
- ↑ JUSTIA, “Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010),” accessed August 21, 2019
- ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Opinion analysis: Justices invalidate civil-service appointments of administrative law judges," June 21, 2018
- ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," June 29, 2020
