Myers v. United States
272 U.S. 52 (1926)
Facts
In July 1917 President Wilson appointed Frank S. Meyers, with the advice and consent of the senate, to be a first-class postmaster in Portland, Oregon for a four- year term. President Wilson later believed Meyers to be a fraud and asked for his resignation, but Meyers refused. President Wilson then had the postmaster general fire Meyers. Meyers complained that he was unlawfully fired because President Wilson he did not receive the approval of the Senate to dismiss him. Meyers’ argument was based upon the Tenure in Office Act of 1867 which stated the President couldn’t remove high-ranking executive department heads without first obtaining the approval of the Senate. The United States argued that the president has full and complete power of removal under Article II and requiring the president to get the approval of Congress…show more content… Chief Justice Taft wrote the majority opinion.
Reasoning
1. Article III grants the president the executive power of government including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers.
2. Congress is only given power to provide for appointment removals of inferior officers after it has vested their appointment in other authority than the president with the senate’s consent.
3. The provisions in Article II are limitations to be strictly interpreted. The Tenure in Office Act of 1867 is unconstitutional as it attempted to prevent the president form removing executive officers who has been appointed by him and with the advice and consent of the senate.
4. The Court of Claims judgment is affirmed.
Concurrences/Dissents
Justice McReynolds dissented: the present theory that the President can remove officers overrides the will of the senate and goes beyond the approved duties of the president and conflicts with the history of the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the President the sole power to remove appointed
