Myers v. U.S. and Humpreys

Myers v. U.S. And Humpreys Executor v. U.S. both deal with the issue of presidential power and the extent of that power. Myers v. U.S. was decided in October of 1996. In this case the question before the court was "whether under the Constitution the President has the exclusive power of removing executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (Myers v. United States)." Frank S. Myers was a first class postmaster in Portland, Oregon who was appointed by the President in 1917. He was supposed to serve a four-year term however, in January of 1920 Myers was asked to resign from his position (Myers v. United States). He refused to do so and in February of the same year he was removed from his position by the Postmaster General.

The Postmaster General was acting under the direction of the president (Myers v. United States). Myers sent petitions to the senate committee responsible for post offices and the President until the end of his term, During the rest of his term Myers did not find a new occupation nor did he receive any compensation (Myers v. United States). Eventually he filed a lawsuit in the Court of claims seeking compensation for the time period between when he was removed and the end of his four-year term (Myers v. United States). However his case was dismissed on the grounds that he waited to long to file suit. The court sited cases such as Nicholas v. United States, Norris v. United States as precedents. In these cases the court decided that "when a United States officer is dismissed, whether in disregard of the law or from mistake as to the facts of his case, he must promptly take effective action to assert his rights (Myers v. United States)." However the Supreme Court ruled that Myers had indeed attempted to take effective action through the sending of petitions. In addition the court found that he could not have a hearing before the senate until the Senate had been notify of his removal or their was someone to take his position. Therefore his delay in taking action was not a result of his neglect but rather certain stipulations established by the federal government. With this understood Myers ability to collect the compensation was dependent upon the power of Congress to limit the president's authority to remove lower level officials that the president had also appointed. As it relates to this specific question before the court, The Act of Congress of July 12, 1876 is the statute under which Myers was hired. This statute states that 'Postmasters of the first, second, and third classes shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and shall hold their offices for four years unless sooner removed or suspended according to law (Myers v. United States).'

Taft speaking for the court found that the above statute was an invasion of executive power (Myers v. United States). Therefore Myers could not get compensation.

In the case of Humpreys Executor v. U.S. The deceased plaintiff in the case also brought a suit to the Court of Claims against the United States. The plaintiff was a Federal Trade Commissioner "nominated by President Hoover to succeed himself as a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and was confirmed by the United States Senate." He was given a seven-year term that was supposed to end in September of 1938. However after working for a short time in July of 1933 President Roosevelt asked the decease plaintiff to resign his position (Humphrey's Executor v. United States).." The request of the President was brought about because the president believed that the "aims and purposes of the Administration with respect to the work of the Commission can be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection,' but disclaiming any reflection upon the commissioner personally or upon his services (Humphrey's Executor v. United States).." "