The Humprey Case - Can President Trump fire Fed Chair Jerome Powell?

Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935): Presidential Power and Independent Agencies

Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the balance between presidential authority and the independence of regulatory agencies.

Case Overview

This case involved President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who dismissed William E. Humphrey, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), due to Humphrey’s opposition to Roosevelt’s New Deal policies. However, the FTC Act specified that commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. After Humphrey’s death, his estate sued to recover his lost salary.

Legal Precedent

The Court ruled unanimously that Roosevelt’s removal of Humphrey was unjustified. It held that the President does not have unlimited removal power over officials in independent agencies like the FTC, which perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. This decision distinguished itself from Myers v. United States (1926), which upheld the President’s removal power over purely executive officers.

Modern Implications

The principles established in Humphrey’s Executor remain relevant today. For example, discussions around whether a president can dismiss officials like the Federal Reserve Chair often reference this case. Legal experts argue that the case reinforces the separation of powers, ensuring that independent agencies are protected from undue political interference.

Debate on Agency Independence

Critics of the ruling contend that granting agencies independence similar to Congress or the judiciary undermines the President’s constitutional authority. Unlike elected officials or judges, agency leaders are not directly accountable to voters or Congress. This debate continues to shape discussions on the role of administrative agencies in government.