List of court cases relevant to executive appointment and removal power

Five Pillars of the Administrative State

Executive control
•Court cases •Legislation •Major arguments •Reform proposals •Scholarly work •Timeline
More pillars
•Agency control • Executive 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.

See also: Appointment and removal power (administrative state)

This table contains major state and federal court cases related to executive appointment and removal power.

Cases relevant to executive appointment and removal power
Case	Court	Year	Impact
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137	U.S. Supreme Court	1803	Court distinguished the appointment and commission power of the president and said the president might have to commission unwanted officers appointed by the head of a department.
Kendall v. United States ex Rel. Stokes, 37 U.S. 524	U.S. Supreme Court	1838	Held that the President has no inherent authority to order an officer to take an action contrary to statutory duties.
Ex parte Hennen, 38 U.S. 230	U.S. Supreme Court	1839	Held that courts may remove officers they appoint. Suggested that presidents have the exclusive power of removal unless limited by the U.S. Constitution or a statute.
Field v. People ex rel. McClernand, 3 Ill. (2 Scam.) 79	Illinois Supreme Court	1839	Judge Lockwood concurring opinion reviewed the debate over the president’s removal power.
United States v. Germaine, 99 U.S. 508	U.S. Supreme Court	1879	Held that a surgeon appointed by an inferior officer to a temporary position was an employee and not an officer.
Embry v. United States, 100 U.S. 680	U.S. Supreme Court	1879	Held that Congress has full control of officers’ salaries even if the removal power lies in another branch.
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371	U.S. Supreme Court	1880	Held that those who appoint officials are not required by the Constitution to be from the same branch or department as those they appoint.
United States v. Perkins, 116 U.S. 483	U.S. Supreme Court	1886	Held that when Congress vests the appointment of inferior officers in department heads, it may limit the removal power as it deems best for the public interest.
Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U.S. 99	U.S. Supreme Court	1890	Held that Congress had the power to alter the terms of incumbent officers, including those appointed with removal protections.
McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174	U.S. Supreme Court	1891	Held that presidents could remove territorial judges before their tenure expired with implied Senate consent.
Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324	U.S. Supreme Court	1897	Held that if a statute does not explicitly provide for the consent of the U.S. Senate for removal, then a clause setting the tenure of an office does not restrict the removal power of the president.
United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331	U.S. Supreme Court	1898	Upheld appointment of temporary vice consul by the consul of Thailand even though the Constitution requires presidential appointment with Senate consent for consuls.
Reagan v. United States, 182 U.S. 419	U.S. Supreme Court	1901	Allowed the court that appointed an inferior judicial officer to remove him without cause even though a statute said he could only be removed for causes prescribed by law.
Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311	U.S. Supreme Court	1903	Case involved a suit over salary by an official removed by President McKinley even though the official had for-cause removal protection. The court allowed the president to remove officers for reasons beyond those listed in a statute.
Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52	U.S. Supreme Court	1926	Held that restrictions on presidential removal power requiring Senate consent to remove postmasters were unconstitutional.
Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189	U.S. Supreme Court	1928	Struck down a law that allowed the Philippine legislature to control certain appointments because the court held that the legislative power did not extend to appointing those who enforce the laws.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602	U.S. Supreme Court	1935	Defined independent regulatory officers’ duties as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial and allowed Congress to restrict the president’s removal power over them.
Morgan v. TVA, 115 F.2d 990, cert. denied, 312 U.S. 701	6th Circuit	1940	Held that the law setting tenure for Tennessee Valley Authority directors did not restrict presidential removal power enough to require the court to determine whether it was constitutional.
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100	U.S. Supreme Court	1953	Case about the appointment of the mayor of D.C.
Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349	U.S. Supreme Court	1958	Court limited presidential removal power even though the statute was silent on the question and only specified term lengths for War Claims commissioners.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1	U.S. Supreme Court	1976	Held that Congress does not have the constitutional power to appoint members to the Federal Election Commission. Said that administrative officials who are officers of the United States must be appointed by the president.
Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 P.2d 298	D.C.Circuit	1981	Held that presidential prodding of agency officials helps keep agencies politically accountable during informal rulemaking.
Martin v. Reagan, 525 F. Supp. 110	District Court for the District of Massachusetts	1981	Upheld presidential exercise of the removal power over members of the National Institute of Justice Advisory Board.
Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714	U.S. Supreme Court	1986	Congressional removal power over the comptroller general held unconstitutional on separation of powers grounds.
Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654	U.S. Supreme Court	1988	Held that a law protecting the independent prosecutor from removal by the president except for good cause was constitutional.
Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361	U.S. Supreme Court	1989	Upheld the constitutionality of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and cited Humphrey’s Executor to support limits on presidential removal power over its members.
Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice, 491 U.S. 440	U.S. Supreme Court	1989	Justice Kennedy argued in a concurring opinion that Congress had no role in choosing who would be nominated for a position.
Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868	U.S. Supreme Court	1991	Held that the Tax Court is not a department for the purposes of the Inferior Officers Appointment Clause because it is not a cabinet-level agency.
Portland Audobon Society v. Endangered Species Committee, 984 F2d. 1534	9th Circuit	1993	Held that Costle only applied to informal rulemaking and that presidential contacts with the agency during formal adjudication was prohibited by the APA ban on ex parte contacts.
Mail Order Association of America v. U.S. Postal Service, 986 F.2d 509	D.C. Circuit	1993	Held that the board of governors of the Postal Service can represent itself in court if it disagreed with the U.S. Department of Justice, which implicated the removal power.
Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651	U.S. Supreme Court	1997	Dispute about whether an officer was inferior. Held that the appointments power of the president was an important structural safeguard of the constitutional scheme.
Landry v. FDIC, 204 F.3d 1125	D.C. Circuit	2000	Held that FDIC administrative law judges were not inferior officers that must be appointed by the president or the head of a department.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477	U.S. Supreme Court	2010	Held that two layers of removal restrictions were unconstitutional because they limit the president’s exercise of the executive power and his control of executive officers too much.
In re Aiken County, 645 F.3d 428	D.C. Circuit	2011	Judge Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion that Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled.
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company, 645 F.3d 428	U.S. Supreme Court	2014	The court held that the Recess Appointments Clause only applies during recesses that occur between formal sessions of the United States Senate.
PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75	D.C. Circuit	2018	Upheld removal protections given to the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Lucia v. SEC, 585 U.S. __	U.S. Supreme Court	2018	The court defined the administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission as inferior officers subject to the Appointments Clause.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment LLC	U.S. Supreme Court	2020	The court found that the Appointments Clause applies to U.S. territories.
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau	U.S. Supreme Court	2020	The court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was unconstitutional. The majority held that restrictions on the president's ability to remove such agency leaders violated separation of powers principles by limiting presidential control of executive power.
United States v. Arthrex Inc.	U.S. Supreme Court	2021	The court's decision preserved the authority of the secretary of commerce to appoint Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) while blocking the enforcement of parts of the patent law that prevented the director of the Patent and Trademark Office from unilaterally reviewing decisions made by APJs.
Collins v. Yellen	U.S. Supreme Court	2021	The court held that restrictions on the president's authority to remove the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency violated the separation of powers.

Footnotes

List of court cases relevant to executive appointment and removal power

See also

Footnotes

Information about voting

2025 Elections

2026 Elections

2024 Election analysis

Trending

Public Policy

Information for candidates

Get Engaged

Services

Additional analysis

SITE NAVIGATION