Humphrey's Executor: Can President Trump Fire Jerome Powell
In a thought-provoking analysis, Harold Furchtgott-Roth delves into the landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) and its implications for the balance of power within the U.S. government. This case remains a cornerstone in understanding the limits of presidential authority over federal officials and the independence of certain government agencies.
Many of these arguments underpin our previous blog where we speculated that the Humphrey case would not hold up under challenge. After all, the Biden administration fired Benioff, Savage (Michael Savage of the Savage Nation) and others from the Presidio Board even though they were quasi-independent.
We have reviewed numerous criticisms of the Humphrey case and none is more cogent or well reasons that Harold Furchtgott-Roth's. So why reinvent the wheel, here is a summary of his analysis and you should read the entire article clicking here Humphrey’s Executor: Can the Administration Fire Government Officials
If you like this work here is the donate link for Hudson.org.
Background of the Case
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to remove William Humphrey, a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, before the end of his term. Humphrey, appointed by President Herbert Hoover, resisted, arguing that the FTC Act protected commissioners from arbitrary dismissal. After Humphrey's death, his executor pursued the case, leading to a historic Supreme Court ruling.
The Supreme Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the president could not remove FTC commissioners at will. The decision established that officers in independent agencies, like the FTC, who perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, are protected from dismissal except for cause, as defined by statute. This marked a significant departure from the earlier Myers v. United States (1926) case, which had granted the president broad removal powers over executive officers.
The Court reasoned that the FTC's role required independence to function effectively, shielding it from direct presidential control. This decision solidified the autonomy of independent agencies, ensuring they could operate without political interference.
Implications for Government Structure
Humphrey's Executor has far-reaching consequences for the separation of powers:
Presidential Authority: The ruling limits the president's ability to fire officials in independent agencies, balancing executive power with agency independence.
Agency Independence: It protects agencies like the FTC, SEC, and others from political pressure, allowing them to make impartial decisions.
Legal Precedent: The case remains a foundational reference for debates over the scope of executive power and the structure of the administrative state.
Modern Relevance
Furchtgott-Roth highlights the ongoing significance of Humphrey's Executor in contemporary governance. As administrations seek to influence or reform federal agencies, the case serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries surrounding the removal of officials. Recent Supreme Court cases, such as Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), have revisited these principles, sparking debates about the balance between accountability and independence.
In an era of polarized politics, the case underscores the importance of safeguarding institutions designed to operate beyond the sway of partisan agendas. It also raises questions about how much control an administration should have over the sprawling federal bureaucracy.
Our favorite quote from the article is this:
The failure of the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor is its tacit endorsement of a law that creates an agency that has legislative and judicial powers as well as executive powers. The FTC falls under neither Article I, nor Article II, nor Article III of the constitution. It sits distantly outside the constitution, and the Humphrey’s Executor court, while recognizing a separation of power challenge, limits that challenge to whether the President has the power to remove a sitting commissioner. “Independent agency” is the euphemism attached to such agencies that fall entirely outside the constitution. They are not merely independent of the Executive Branch; they are independent of the constitution. The federal government has many such independent agencies.
Conclusion
Humphrey's Executor is more than a historical footnote; it’s a critical precedent that shapes the dynamics of U.S. governance. By affirming the independence of certain government officials, the ruling ensures that agencies can fulfill their mandates without undue political influence. As Harold Furchtgott-Roth notes, understanding this case is essential for grasping the delicate balance of power in the American system.
For a deeper dive into the case and its implications, read the full analysis at Hudson.org.