Supreme Court of the United States · 1886 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawAppointments ClauseRemoval Powerinferior officersAppointments Clauseremoval powerSecretary of the Navycadet-engineer
Facts
Perkins entered the Naval Academy as a cadet-engineer in 1877 and graduated on June 10, 1881. On June 26, 1883, the Secretary of the Navy notified him that because he was not required to fill a vacancy during the preceding year, he was honorably discharged effective June 30, 1883, with one year's sea-pay. Perkins protested the order as illegal, refused the pay, and claimed he remained in the service. He then sued to recover salary accruing from June 30, 1883, to September 1, 1883.
Issue
Whether, apart from the Act of August 5, 1882, the Secretary of the Navy had lawful authority to discharge Perkins at will on the theory that a cadet-engineer was not an officer protected by Rev. Stat. § 1229. More broadly, the question was whether Congress may restrict the removal of an inferior officer whose appointment it has vested in a department head.
Rule
When Congress, by law, vests the appointment of inferior officers in the heads of departments, it may also limit, restrict, and regulate their removal as it deems best for the public interest. A department head has no independent constitutional prerogative over such appointments or removals apart from the legislation of Congress, and must act within statutory limits.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress creates a federal office of harbor chart examiner and provides that examiners are appointed by the Secretary of Marine Services. The statute also says an examiner may be removed only after a formal finding of misconduct or after an adverse review board determination. In Baltimore, Secretary Nolan Pierce dismisses Ava Morales immediately because he wants to reduce staff more quickly.
Is Ava's dismissal most likely valid?
Explanation. The majority rule is that when Congress by law vests appointment of inferior officers in heads of departments, it may limit, restrict, and regulate their removal as it deems best for the public interest. The department head has no independent constitutional prerogative to ignore those limits. Because the statute here prescribes exclusive removal grounds and procedures, an immediate dismissal for convenience is ineffective.