Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Myers v. United States
 | |
| Myers v. United States | |
| Reference: 272 US 52 (1926) | |
| Term: 1926 | |
| Important Dates | |
| Argued: April 13-14, 1925 Decided: October 25, 1926 | |
| Outcome | |
| United States Court of Federal Claims affirmed | |
| Majority | |
| Chief Justice William Howard Taft • Willis Van Devanter • George Sutherland • Pierce Butler • Edward T. Sanford • Harlan F. Stone | |
| Dissenting | |
| Louis Brandeis • James Clark McReynolds • Oliver Wendell Holmes | |
- See also: Appointment and removal power
Myers v. United States is a case decided on October 25, 1926, by the United States Supreme Court in which the court held that the power to remove appointed officials, with the exception of federal judges, rests solely with the president and does not require congressional approval.[1][2]
Why it matters: The court held that that the power to remove appointed officials rests solely with the president. Chief Justice William Howard Taft stated in the opinion that requiring Senate approval before allowing the president to remove an appointed official would "discharge [the president's] own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed."[2]
Background
| Five Pillars of the Administrative State |
|---|
|
| Executive control |
|
•Court cases |
| 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. |
Frank S. Myers, a first-class postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from office by President Woodrow Wilson (D) in 1920. Since Wilson did not obtain the approval of the United States Senate before removing Myers from office, Myers argued that his removal violated the following provisions of an 1876 law:[1][2]
| “ | Postmasters of the first, second and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and shall hold their offices for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law.[1][3] | ” |
Myers protested his removal before the former United States Post Office Department and petitioned both Wilson and the former U.S. Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service for a hearing on any charges related to his dismissal. Three months prior to what would have been the expiration of his four-year term as postmaster, Myers filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking his salary since removal. The claims court rejected his suit on the grounds that Myers had waited too long after his removal to file suit and was, therefore, guilty of laches. Myers appealed the judgment to the United States Supreme Court.[1]
Oral argument
Oral arguments were held on April 13-14, 1925. The case was decided on October 25, 1926.[1]
Outcome
The United States Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling in a 6-3 decision. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft and joined by Justices Willis Van Devanter, George Sutherland, Pierce Butler, Edward T. Sanford, and Harlan F. Stone. Justices Louis Brandeis, James Clark McReynolds, and Oliver Wendell Holmes issued dissenting opinions.[1]
Opinions
Opinion of the court
Chief Justice William Howard Taft first clarified that Myers was not guilty of laches because, although he did not file suit in federal claims court until three months prior to what would have been the expiration of his term in office, he had persistently pursued his case through a number of other avenues since his removal. Taft then turned to the question of the president's removal authority and relied on a historical precedent dating to the First Congress in 1789 to analyze the interpretation of the president's power. Taft concluded that the president alone is vested with the authority to remove appointed officers. While the Senate has the authority to check presidential appointments through advice and consent, that authority does not translate to the power to check removals. Taft observed that denying the President the power to remove appointed officials would prevent the president from carrying out his executive duty to ensure the faithful execution of the law.[1]
The opinion featured the following historical analysis of the president's appointment and removal powers:
| “ | Upon an historical examination of the subject, the Court finds that the action of the First Congress, in 1789, touching the Bill to establish a Department of Foreign Affairs, was a clean-cut and deliberate construction of the Constitution as vesting in the President alone the power to remove officers, inferior as well as superior, appointed by him with the consent of the Senate; that this construction was acquiesced in by all branches of the Government for 73 years, and that subsequent attempts of Congress, through the Tenure of Office Act of March 2, 1867, and other acts of that period, to reverse the construction of 1789 by subjecting the President's power to remove executive officers appointed by him and confirmed by the Senate to the control of the Senate or lodge such power elsewhere in the Government were not acquiesced in, but their validity was denied by the Executive whenever any real issue over it arose.[1][3] | ” |
Dissenting opinion
Justices Louis Brandeis, James Clark McReynolds, and Oliver Wendell Holmes authored dissenting opinions. Holmes claimed that since the postmaster office was created by Congress, the president's appointment and removal power concerning the office was granted by Congress and, therefore, subject to congressional approval. McReynolds provided a historical examination of case law and concluded that the president did not possess "illimitable power" to remove postmasters. Brandeis further argued that, in respect to inferior officers, the 1876 law had been accepted since its enactment and granted the Senate the authority to consent to both appointments and removals. He later tuned to Marbury v. Madison to support his position:[1]
| “ | In Marbury v. Madison, it was assumed, as the basis of decision, that the President, acting alone, is powerless to remove an inferior civil officer appointed for a fixed term with the consent of the Senate, and that case was long regarded as so deciding.[1][3] | ” |
Impact
The case affirmed that that the power to remove appointed officials rests solely with the president. Taft stated in the opinion that requiring approval from the Senate before allowing the president to remove an appointed official would "discharge [the president's] own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed."[2]
See also
- Administrative Procedure Act
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Ballotpedia's administrative state coverage
External links
- Full text of case syllabus and opinions (Justia)
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Search Google News for this topic
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 JUSTIA, "Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926)," accessed June 22, 2018
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Oyez, "Myers v. United States," accessed June 22, 2018
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
