The Constitution says how officers are appointed but says almost nothing about how they are removed, except by impeachment. Can the President fire any executive officer at will, or may Congress protect some officers by allowing removal only "for cause"? The answer shapes who controls federal agencies, and the Court's answer has moved over a century.
| Case | Officer | Holding |
|---|---|---|
| Myers v. United States (1926) | A postmaster | Congress may not require Senate consent for removal; the President may remove executive officers he appoints. |
| Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) | A Federal Trade Commissioner | Congress may limit removal of members of a multi-member commission described as "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial." The Court overruled this precedent in 2026. |
| Wiener v. United States (1958) | A member of the War Claims Commission | A body that decides claims on the merits is protected even when the statute is silent about removal. |
| Morrison v. Olson (1988) | An independent counsel | A good-cause limit on removing an inferior officer with limited duties was valid; Justice Scalia dissented alone. |
| Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB (2010) | Accounting board members | Two layers of for-cause protection are invalid. |
| Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) | The single director of the CFPB | Removal protection for a single agency head is invalid; Humphrey's was not extended. |
Why it works
Key idea
Worked example: Applying Seila Law
- The administrator is a principal officer, not an inferior officer with limited duties, so Morrison does not help.
- One person, not a multi-member body, heads the agency, and Seila Law refused to extend Humphrey's to that design.
- The administrator wields significant executive power (rules, enforcement).
Answer: Invalid. Following Seila Law, a court would likely cut the removal limit and leave the agency in place.
Worked example: Where Morrison fits
- Morrison upheld a for-cause limit on removing an inferior officer with limited duties and tenure.
- Seila Law described Morrison as an exception for inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.
- Seila Law did not overrule Morrison.
Answer: Morrison survives as a narrow exception for some inferior officers, though its reasoning has been criticized, most famously in Justice Scalia's dissent.
Common mistake
For the history of the Decision of 1789 and the founding debate, see Federalist No. 76 and Federalist No. 77.