Facts
- Frank S. Myers was appointed first-class postmaster of Portland, Oregon, for a four-year term by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.
- In 1920, Myers was removed by the Postmaster General acting at the President’s direction, without obtaining Senate consent.
- A federal statute provided that certain postmasters “may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.”
- Myers repeatedly protested and sought reinstatement through petitions to the President and a Senate committee, and did not take other employment during the remainder of his term.
- Myers sued the United States in the Court of Claims for salary from the date of removal through the end of the term, asserting the removal was unlawful under the statute.
Issues
- Whether Myers’ suit for back pay was barred by laches due to delay in pursuing relief.
- Whether Congress may require Senate advice and consent as a condition on the President’s removal of a first-class postmaster appointed with Senate confirmation.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held Myers was not barred by laches because he consistently sought reinstatement and did not fail to assert his rights.
- The Court held the statutory requirement of Senate consent for removal was unconstitutional as applied to an executive officer such as a postmaster.
- The Court concluded the President may remove executive officers he appointed with Senate consent, and Congress may not make that removal power dependent on Senate approval.
- Because the President’s unilateral removal was constitutionally valid, Myers had no right to continued salary after removal; judgment for the United States was affirmed on the merits.
Legal Principles
- The executive power vested in the President includes authority to remove officers who perform purely executive functions.
- The Senate’s role in appointments is a specific textual limitation and does not imply a continuing control over removals.
- Congressional attempts to condition presidential removal on Senate consent violate separation of powers when applied to purely executive officers.
- The President’s duty to ensure faithful execution of the laws supports presidential control over executive personnel, including removal authority.
Conclusion
The Court invalidated a statute requiring Senate consent for removal of a first-class postmaster, holding that the Constitution grants the President exclusive authority to remove purely executive officers he has appointed with Senate confirmation; Myers therefore could not recover salary after his removal, though his claim was not barred by laches.