Humphrey's Executor v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1935 · Administrative Law

295 U.S. 602 (1935)

Overruled by Trump v. Slaughter (2026)

Updated July 21, 2026

Administrative LawPresidential removal powerIndependent agenciesSeparation of powersFederal Trade Commissionremoval for causefixed termquasi-legislative

Facts

William E. Humphrey was appointed and confirmed as a member of the Federal Trade Commission for a seven-year term expiring September 25, 1938. In 1933, President Roosevelt requested Humphrey's resignation because the Administration's aims would be carried out more effectively with personnel of the President's own selection, and later stated that their minds did not go along together on policy or administration. Humphrey refused to resign, and on October 7, 1933, the President removed him without asserting inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Humphrey maintained that he remained a commissioner entitled to perform his duties and receive his salary until his death.

Issue

Does the Federal Trade Commission Act restrict the President to removing a commissioner only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office? If so, is that statutory restriction on the President's removal power constitutional as applied to a Federal Trade Commissioner?

Rule

Where Congress creates an office of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial character, fixes a definite term, and provides that removal may occur only for specified causes, the President may not remove the officer during that term except for one or more of those causes. Myers establishes unrestrictable presidential removal only for purely executive officers and does not control officers who do not exercise purely executive power.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress creates the National Market Practices Board, a five-member body in Washington, D.C., with staggered seven-year terms. The statute says members may be removed by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and the Board mainly conducts industry investigations for Congress and issues orders after hearings. President Elena Ward removes member Daniel Kerr solely because he opposes the administration's economic program.

If Daniel challenges the removal, which is the strongest conclusion under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The majority held that where Congress creates an office of quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial character, fixes a definite term, and provides removal only for specified causes, the President may not remove the officer during that term except for one of those causes. Policy disagreement alone is insufficient. The case confines unrestricted removal to purely executive officers.