Humphrey’s Executor v. United States is the 1935 Supreme Court decision that stopped a President from firing the head of an independent regulatory commission over a policy disagreement. The unanimous ruling held that Congress may protect certain agency officials from at-will removal when their work is regulatory and adjudicatory rather than purely executive. That principle has shaped the structure of independent agencies like the FTC, SEC, FCC, and NLRB for nine decades, and the Supreme Court is now actively considering whether to overrule it.
The Firing That Produced the Case
William Humphrey was a Federal Trade Commissioner reappointed by President Herbert Hoover to a seven-year term in 1931. When Franklin Roosevelt took office, he wanted commissioners aligned with the New Deal. On July 25, 1933, Roosevelt asked Humphrey to resign, writing that the Commission’s work “can be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection.”1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) Roosevelt was explicit that he had no criticism of Humphrey personally.
Humphrey refused to resign. A second letter followed in August, and when Humphrey still refused, Roosevelt removed him on October 7, 1933. No misconduct, incompetence, or neglect was alleged. The sole reason was that the President and the commissioner did not see eye to eye on policy.
Humphrey maintained he was still the rightful commissioner until his death on February 14, 1934. His executor then sued the United States in the Court of Claims to recover the salary Humphrey would have earned between the firing and his death, based on the commissioner’s annual pay of $10,000.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)
What the Statute Said
Congress created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 as a bipartisan body with staggered terms, designed to be insulated from the political cycle.2Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Act The FTC Act provides that a commissioner “may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 15 USC 41 – Federal Trade Commission Established
The Court read that list as exhaustive. By naming three specific grounds, Congress had signaled those were the only acceptable grounds. A President could fire a commissioner who was incompetent, absent, or corrupt. A President could not fire one for holding the wrong policy views. None of the statutory grounds fit Humphrey’s case.
The Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on May 27, 1935, that Roosevelt’s removal of Humphrey was illegal. Justice Sutherland’s opinion held that when Congress creates officers whose functions are “of legislative and judicial quality, rather than executive,” and limits the grounds for their removal, the President has no constitutional power to remove them for reasons outside those limits.1Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) The Court ordered the back pay Humphrey’s estate had sought.
Why Commissioners Were Treated Differently From Executive Officers
The government relied heavily on Myers v. United States (1926), where the Court had recognized the President’s unrestricted power to remove a postmaster. Chief Justice Taft’s opinion suggested that removal authority reached every officer the President appoints.4Legal Information Institute. Myers v. United States
Sutherland rejected that reading and drew a sharp line between two kinds of federal officers. A postmaster takes orders and carries out the President’s directives. An FTC commissioner does something structurally different. The commission drafts rules that fill in broad congressional mandates, holds hearings, weighs evidence, and issues orders against companies that violate trade laws. Those regulatory and adjudicatory functions, the Court explained, set the FTC apart from any cabinet department.5Library of Congress. 295 U.S. 602 – Humphrey’s Executor v. United States
Impartiality was built into the design. An agency meant to investigate corporate conduct, issue binding orders, and report to Congress could not do its job if commissioners feared dismissal every time the White House changed hands. The for-cause removal restriction was the mechanism Congress chose to keep expert regulators focused on the law rather than presidential politics.
What the Ruling Built
Humphrey’s Executor became the constitutional foundation for every independent regulatory commission in the federal government. The Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and others share the FTC’s basic structure: multi-member bodies, bipartisan composition, staggered terms, and for-cause removal protections. Without the ruling, a new President could sweep out every sitting commissioner on inauguration day and replace them with political allies.
How Later Decisions Refined the Doctrine
The Supreme Court revisited the removal question several times over the following decades, never overruling Humphrey’s Executor but drawing tighter lines around it.
In Morrison v. Olson (1988), the Court upheld for-cause removal protection for the independent counsel investigating executive branch wrongdoing. Congress could restrict removal, the Court reasoned, so long as the restriction did not interfere with the President’s ability to carry out core executive functions. The independent counsel’s limited jurisdiction and inferior-officer status meant the protection passed muster.6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988)
In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), the Court struck down a double layer of removal protection. Members of the accounting oversight board could only be removed for cause by the SEC, whose commissioners could only be removed for cause by the President. That stacking, the Court held, insulated board members so thoroughly from presidential oversight that it violated the separation of powers. The remedy was narrow: the board survived, but its members became removable at will by the SEC.
The most important refinement came in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020). The Court struck down for-cause removal protection for the CFPB’s single director, finding that concentrating broad enforcement power in one unfireable person violated Article II. But the majority preserved Humphrey’s Executor, distinguishing the FTC’s structure: multiple commissioners, bipartisan balance, staggered terms, and regulatory and adjudicatory functions rather than purely executive ones. The CFPB director, by contrast, wielded “quintessentially executive power” alone.7Supreme Court of the United States. Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7
Read together, these cases sharpened the doctrine. Multi-member commissions doing regulatory and adjudicatory work may be shielded from at-will removal. Single directors wielding broad enforcement power may not. And protection cannot be stacked so thickly that the President loses any meaningful line of accountability over federal officers.
The 2025–2026 Challenge
The 90-year-old precedent now faces its most serious test. Starting in 2025, the Trump administration removed members of several independent boards and commissions, arguing that for-cause removal restrictions violate the President’s Article II authority. Members of at least eight agencies filed federal lawsuits challenging their terminations.
In May 2025, the Supreme Court issued a stay in Trump v. Wilcox that allowed the President to proceed with removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board while litigation continued. The majority stopped short of resolving the constitutional question, writing that “we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception.”8Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Wilcox, No. 24A966 (2025) The stay itself, however, suggested that a majority of justices found the removal protections vulnerable.
The case most directly aimed at Humphrey’s Executor is Slaughter v. Trump, which involves the removal of FTC commissioners. The D.C. Circuit held that Humphrey’s Executor “controls this case and binds this court,” noting that the Supreme Court had “expressly refused five times to reconsider Humphrey’s Executor, including as recently as 2021.”9U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Slaughter v. Trump, No. 25-5261 The Supreme Court granted review and heard oral arguments in December 2025, directing both sides to address whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled.
If the Court overrules the precedent, every independent commission with for-cause protection would lose its constitutional shield. Commissioners at the FTC, SEC, FCC, and similar agencies could be fired at will by any President. If the Court instead reaffirms the ruling, it would settle the question for a generation and confirm that the multi-member commission model Congress has relied on since 1914 remains constitutionally sound.