In Myers v. United States (1926) the Supreme Court ruled that the president had nearly unlimited authority to fire executive branch officials and Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution limits Congress from restricting this power. It was the first time the Court overturned a Federal law for violating separation of powers. The Court had recognized presidential power to remove Federal officials in several cases beginning with Ex parte Hennen (1839). In Parsons v. United States (1897), the Court ruled that this power was implicit short of a statute expressly restricting it. However, the question of whether or not the Senate's consent for removals was required remained unresolved.
An 1876 statute allowed the president to appoint and dismiss postmasters with the Senate's consent. The Myers case began in 1920 when President Wilson sacked Frank Myers, the first-class postmaster of Portland, Oregon, without consulting the Senate or offering any explanation for Myers's removal. He filed suit on grounds of lost wages, but a claims court rejected the suit on laches grounds. Myers died shortly afterward, but his widow continued the litigation.The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that presidential power to fire Federal officials was essentially unlimited. It was one of the lengthiest set of opinions in a Supreme Court ruling to date. Chief Justice Taft wrote the majority opinion. He noted that the Constitution has nothing to say about removal of Federal officials and that it was hardly brought up at all during the Constitutional Convention. Taft found that the Virginia Plan had offered to grant the president all of Congress's executive powers. Some of the delegates distrusted the idea of a unitary executive and lobbied for the Appointments Clause in which the Senate's permission was required.
Although the Senate must consent to appointments and Congress had the authority to create executive offices, the president nonetheless did have the authority to dismiss Federal officials freely as part of his vested powers. The amicus curiae brief for the case was written by a 23 year old Claude Pepper, future member of the House and Senate and one of its most outspoken liberals, which suggested that allowing unlimited presidential authority to sack Federal officials would resurrect the spoils system. Taft gave little weight to this argument, arguing that the president's removal power caused no interference with the merit system because the Senate had the authority to approve Federal appointments, ensuring they would be appointed by merit.Taft's opinion then went down subsequent Congressional debates over the issue. He said that Montesquieu was the main originator of the separation of powers doctrine and believed the Constitution kept the three branches of government separated in most circumstances and cited historical evidence that Alexander Hamilton and the Neutrality Proclamation proved Article 1, Section 2 does not restrict presidential power. Congress had debated for an entire month in 1789, the so-called "Decision of 1789", and came to the conclusion that the president had full authority to remove Federal officials.
Justice McReynolds was one of the three dissenters in the case. He went down a list of quotes from members of the Constitutional Convention and said the Constitution had no text in it, nor did the notes at the Convention suggest the president was supposed to have unlimited authority to fire Federal officials on any whim of his. McReynolds argued that this unlimited removal power had degraded the civil service and caused demands for reform. He noted that Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and John Calhoun had all condemned the "evils" that would result from the president being able to arbitrarily fire officials.Justice Brandeis in a separate dissent wrote that Marbury v. Madison had as its basis the assumption that the president cannot fire a Federal official without the Senate's consent and that the issue was long considered settled after that case.Justice Holmes noted that Congress could abolish the position of postmaster entirely in addition to setting its pay and duties, and so they should also be able to set terms of the position's occupiers.Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) saw the Court limit the president's authority to strictly executive branch offices. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) the Court upheld the Myers ruling and determined that the president's power to sack Federal officials is essentially unlimited.
>>18699611>The Myers case began in 1920 when President Wilson sacked Frank Myers, the first-class postmaster of Portland, Oregon, without consulting the Senate or offering any explanation for Myers's removal.Wilson was a dying cripple by this time so any actions his final year in office are suspect.
