Joyce Vance writes:

Who is Humphrey’s Executor and why should you care?

Humphrey’s Executor was the plaintiff in a 1930s court case. Mr. Humphrey, a Federal Trade Commissioner, had passed away, and the executor of his will wanted to recover the salary he was due for his work as a commissioner from October 8, 1933, to the time of his death on February 14, 1934. The problem was that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had fired Humphrey, who refused to resign, after FDR told him, “I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission, and, frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence.”

The issue on appeal was whether the president had the power to fire Humphrey. The Supreme Court ruled that he didn’t. They reasoned that the law passed by Congress that established and regulates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) set a fixed term of office for commissioners and provided that they could only be removed by the president for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The Court held that Congress intended to restrict the power of removal to those situations and that presidents are not free to fire appointees like Humphrey just because they are of different minds on policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision implies that their ruling applies beyond the FTC. The Court focused on “the character of the Commission,” which they noted is “an independent, nonpartisan body of experts, charged with duties neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” That means their decision should apply to all congressionally created commissions of similar nature. The Court wrote that “When Congress provides for the appointment of officers whose functions, like those of the Federal Trade Commissioners, are of Legislative and judicial quality, rather than executive, and limits the grounds upon which they may be removed from office, the President has no constitutional power to remove them for reasons other than those so specified.”

That clearly doesn’t make Trump happy. The Trump administration is in the process of trying to upend the division of power under the Constitution. It is trying to assume congressional power for the executive branch and undercut the legitimacy of the judiciary while exposing individual judges to threats. That’s why Humphrey’s Executor, long considered firmly established precedent, is under attack by the administration, which views its ability to fire those it views as disloyal, or perhaps merely as inconveniently occupying seats they would prefer to see others in, is newly relevant. The concern is that the Trump administration will take a case to the Supreme Court that will lead the Court to reverse or rein in that precedent, expanding Trump’s power further at the expense of Congress. [Continue reading…]