Presidential control of agencies
📌 Presidential Control of Agencies: Overview
The U.S. Constitution vests executive power in the President (Art. II). But Congress creates administrative agencies—some placed under presidential control (executive agencies) and others more independent (independent regulatory commissions).
The question often arises: How much control can the President exercise over agencies?
This involves the President’s power to:
Appoint agency officials (Art. II, §2).
Remove officials (implied executive power).
Supervise and direct their decision-making.
The Supreme Court has developed doctrines balancing Presidential authority with Congressional independence for agencies.
📚 Key Cases
1. Myers v. United States (1926)
Facts: Myers, a postmaster, was removed by President Wilson without Senate approval, even though a statute required it.
Issue: Can Congress restrict the President’s removal power over executive officers?
Holding: The Court (Chief Justice Taft) held that the President has exclusive power to remove purely executive officers.
Reasoning: Since the President is responsible for faithfully executing the laws, he must have authority to remove officials who assist in this duty. Any Congressional limitation on this removal power was unconstitutional.
Importance: Strong recognition of Presidential control over executive agencies.
2. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
Facts: President Roosevelt removed a commissioner of the FTC (an independent regulatory agency) for policy reasons. The statute allowed removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Issue: Can the President remove independent regulatory commissioners at will?
Holding: The Court limited Myers, holding that Congress can restrict removal when the officer performs quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, rather than purely executive duties.
Importance: Established the idea of independent agencies insulated from Presidential control.
3. Wiener v. United States (1958)
Facts: Involved the War Claims Commission, where members were appointed for specific adjudicatory functions. President Eisenhower tried to remove a commissioner before his term expired.
Holding: The Court held that even though the statute was silent on removal, the President could not remove members at will, since the agency’s function was adjudicatory, requiring independence from political influence.
Importance: Reinforced limits on Presidential removal power where independence is essential for fair adjudication.
4. Morrison v. Olson (1988)
Facts: Concerned the Independent Counsel Act, which allowed the Attorney General to remove an independent counsel only for cause.
Issue: Did this restriction on removal violate separation of powers by limiting Presidential control?
Holding: The Court upheld the statute, finding that “for cause” removal did not unduly interfere with the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duties.
Reasoning: Independent counsel had limited jurisdiction and authority, so insulation from at-will removal did not undermine executive power.
Importance: Expanded the scope of permissible Congressional limitations on removal.
5. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
Facts: PCAOB members (under SEC supervision) could only be removed for cause, and SEC commissioners themselves could only be removed for cause.
Issue: Was this “double for-cause” removal protection constitutional?
Holding: The Court struck down the dual-layer for-cause protection as unconstitutional because it excessively restricted the President’s ability to ensure faithful execution of the laws.
Importance: Reinforced that too much insulation of agency officials from Presidential oversight violates separation of powers.
6. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020)
Facts: The CFPB was headed by a single Director, removable only for cause.
Issue: Can Congress restrict the President’s power to remove a single agency head?
Holding: The Court ruled the structure unconstitutional. Unlike multi-member commissions (Humphrey’s), a single Director wielding significant executive power must be subject to at-will removal.
Importance: Drew a sharp distinction between multi-member independent commissions and single-director agencies.
7. Biden v. Nebraska (2023) (Recent)
Facts: Concerned the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness program implemented by the Department of Education.
Issue: While the main question was statutory authority, the case raised broader implications about how much control the President can exercise over executive agencies when exercising delegated powers.
Holding: The Court struck down the program as exceeding statutory authority.
Importance: Reinforced that agencies remain bounded by Congress’s delegation, even under Presidential direction.
⚖️ Summary of Doctrinal Development
Myers (1926) → Strong Presidential removal power for executive officials.
Humphrey’s Executor (1935) → Independent agencies can have removal protection.
Wiener (1958) → Adjudicatory agencies insulated from Presidential interference.
Morrison (1988) → For-cause removal permissible if it doesn’t impede executive functioning.
Free Enterprise Fund (2010) → Too much insulation (double for-cause) violates separation of powers.
Seila Law (2020) → Single-director independent agencies are unconstitutional.
Modern cases (e.g., Biden v. Nebraska, 2023) → Show tension between Presidential control and statutory limits imposed by Congress.
✅ In short: The President enjoys broad powers over executive agencies, but Congress can create independent agencies insulated from direct Presidential control—though not without limits. The balance has shifted over time, reflecting concerns about accountability vs. independence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments