Myers v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1926 · Administrative Law

272 U.S. 52 (1926)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative Lawpresidential removalArticle IIremoval powerexecutive officersSenate consentpostmasterseparation of powers

Facts

Myers was appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as first-class postmaster at Portland, Oregon, for a four-year term beginning July 21, 1917. On February 2, 1920, he was removed from office by order of the Postmaster General acting under the President's direction, without Senate consent. A federal statute provided that first-, second-, and third-class postmasters shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold office for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law. Myers sued for the salary he would have received for the remainder of his term, claiming the removal was invalid because the Senate had not consented.

Issue

May Congress constitutionally require the advice and consent of the Senate for the President to remove an executive officer whom the President appointed with Senate consent? More specifically, was the statutory requirement of Senate consent to remove a first-class postmaster valid under Article II?

Rule

Article II vests the executive power in the President and includes the general administrative control of those executing the laws, including the power to appoint and remove executive officers. The Senate's role in appointments under Article II is a specific limitation that must be strictly construed and does not extend by implication to removals. Congress may regulate appointment and removal of inferior officers only when, and after, it has vested their appointment in some authority other than the President with the Senate's consent.

🔒

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 office of Regional Export Director, a federal executive position. The statute provides that the President appoints the director with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a five-year term, and that removal before the term ends requires Senate approval. The President removes Dana Ortiz, the director in Miami, without seeking the Senate's approval.

Is Dana Ortiz likely to prevail in a suit for salary for the balance of the term?

Explanation. The majority held that Article II gives the President the exclusive removal power over executive officers whom he appoints with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate's participation in appointment is a specific limitation that must be strictly construed and is not extended by implication to removal. Thus, a statute requiring Senate consent to remove such an executive officer is unconstitutional, so Dana would not recover the remaining salary.