What to know about Humphrey's Executor, legal hurdle to Trump firings - Axios

History of Humphrey's Executor:

In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, setting a precedent that has had lasting implications on the power of the President to remove officials. The case involved President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempting to remove William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) after Humphrey refused to resign. The Court ruled that certain officials, like FTC commissioners, could only be removed for cause, not at the President's discretion.

This decision established a clear limitation on the President's removal power, ensuring that certain federal officials are protected from arbitrary removal for political reasons. The ruling was based on the idea that these officials should be able to carry out their duties without fear of arbitrary dismissal, promoting independence and impartiality in regulatory agencies.

Since the Humphrey's Executor case, the concept of for-cause removal has been a key legal principle in administrative law, shaping the relationship between the President and independent agencies. It has been invoked in various legal challenges over the years to challenge attempts by Presidents to remove officials without cause, highlighting the enduring significance of this landmark Supreme Court decision.

The case of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in 1935, established an important legal precedent regarding the removal of officials within independent agencies. The Court ruled that the President cannot remove officials from such agencies without cause, emphasizing the importance of maintaining their independence from political influence.

This precedent has been cited in numerous cases involving the removal of officials from independent agencies, serving as a key protection against political interference in their operations. It remains a significant legal hurdle for any President seeking to remove officials from agencies like the FTC.

The decision in Humphrey's Executor has broader implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, as it underscores the importance of checks and balances in ensuring the proper functioning of government agencies. This precedent is likely to play a central role in any legal challenges to President Trump's recent firings at the FTC.

The Legacy of Humphrey's Executor

According to legal scholar Professor Johnson, "Humphrey's Executor set an important precedent regarding the limits of executive power in the context of independent agencies." The Supreme Court's decision in this case established the principle that certain government officials cannot be removed without cause, ensuring a level of independence and stability in regulatory bodies.

Throughout history, Humphrey's Executor has served as a legal hurdle in the realm of executive branch firings. The recent firing of two Democratic commissioners at the FTC has reignited discussions surrounding the limitations of presidential power and the role of independent agencies. As the legal battles continue, it remains to be seen how Humphrey's Executor will shape the future of executive branch firings.

With the ongoing debates and legal challenges surrounding this issue, it is clear that the legacy of Humphrey's Executor will continue to influence the dynamics between the executive and independent agencies for years to come. The intersection of politics and law in this arena highlights the complexities of maintaining a balance of power within the federal government.

As the legal landscape evolves, one thing is certain: the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor will remain a significant factor in shaping the boundaries of presidential authority and the independence of regulatory agencies in the United States.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/19/humpreys-executor-trump-ftc-firing