Myers v. United States
Headline: President’s removal power upheld, striking down law that required Senate consent to remove certain postmasters and making it easier for Presidents to fire those appointed officers without Senate approval.
Holding: The Court held that the President alone has the constitutional power to remove executive officers appointed with the Senate’s advice and consent, and the law requiring Senate approval to remove certain postmasters is invalid.
- Allows Presidents to remove certain appointed postmasters without Senate approval.
- Invalidates statutory rules requiring Senate consent for similar removals.
- Gives Presidents greater direct control over executive personnel.
Summary
Background
Frank S. Myers was appointed in 1917 as a first-class postmaster for a four-year term. In 1920 he was removed by the Postmaster General acting on the President’s direction; the Senate did not consent to that removal. Myers sued to recover the salary he would have earned through his four-year term under a statute that said such postmasters could be removed only "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."
Reasoning
The Court framed the central question plainly: who controls removal of executive officers the President appoints with Senate approval? Writing for the majority, the Court relied on Article II’s grant of executive power, the President’s duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," and historical practice and debate (including the First Congress) to conclude the removal power is an incident of appointment and belongs to the President alone unless the Constitution expressly says otherwise. The Court held the 1876 statutory requirement of Senate consent for removing first-class postmasters was unconstitutional and invalid.
Real world impact
Because that statutory restriction was invalidated, the removal of Myers was lawful and he cannot recover his claimed salary. The decision confirms that Presidents may remove executive officers they appointed with Senate consent without securing the Senate’s approval, and it limits Congress’s ability to block such removals unless the Constitution specifically authorizes that block.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Holmes and McReynolds dissented, arguing Congress may prescribe terms and conditions for offices it creates and that the Constitution does not clearly give the President unrestricted removal power; they warned about upsetting statutory protections and civil-service reforms.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?