272 U.S. 52 (1926)
Frank S. Myers was appointed postmaster at Portland, Oregon, of the first class on July 10, 1917, for a term of four years fixed by statute.1 On January 3, 1921, President Wilson directed his removal without the advice and consent of the Senate.2 Myers protested to the department that his removal was illegal and refused to surrender his office. He was, however, ousted and a successor appointed with the consent of the Senate.3
He brought suit in the Court of Claims for his salary from the date of his removal to the end of his term. The Court of Claims gave judgment against him. The case comes here on appeal.4
By act of Congress approved July 12, 1876, it was provided that postmasters of the first, second and third classes should be appointed and might be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The term of the office was fixed at four years.5
Whether under the Constitution the President of the United States has the power to remove a postmaster of the first class without the advice and consent of the Senate?6
Yes. Frank S. Myers was appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, as postmaster of the first class at Portland, Oregon, on July 10, 1917, for a four-year term as fixed by the Act of July 12, 1876.10 On January 3, 1921, President Wilson directed his removal without the advice and consent of the Senate.
Myers protested the removal as illegal, refused to surrender the office, and was ousted when a successor was appointed with Senate consent.11 He then sued in the Court of Claims for salary from the date of removal to the end of his term, but the Court of Claims entered judgment against him.12 The facts establish that Myers was an executive officer whose removal the President could effect without Senate consent. The 1876 statute cannot validly condition the exercise of that authority on Senate consent, because the Constitution places the removal power in the President alone as part of the executive power.13 The Court of Claims judgment must therefore be reversed.
The President possesses the constitutional power to remove the postmaster without the advice and consent of the Senate.14
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Holmes dissented, arguing that Congress possesses the authority to limit the President's power to remove an inferior officer such as a postmaster.15 The statute in plain terms does so.16 He reasoned that the office owes its existence to Congress, which may fix its term and impose conditions on removal.17
The power of Congress to create the office and to fix its term carries with it the power to impose conditions upon the appointment and removal.18 The Constitution does not prohibit it.19 The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.20
The judgment below should therefore be affirmed.21
Justice McReynolds dissented, maintaining that the power of removal is not an unlimited one.22 The Constitution expressly provides for the appointment of officers by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.23 It is silent as to removal.24
Congress may impose reasonable restrictions upon it.25 The statute here in question is a reasonable regulation of the power of removal and is valid.26 He concluded that the 1876 statute constitutes a valid regulation of the removal power.27
The judgment of the Court of Claims should be affirmed on that basis.28
Justice Brandeis dissented on the ground that the decision overturns a long course of practice and legislation.29 He observed that Congress has from the beginning limited the President's removal power over officers appointed with Senate consent.30 The 1876 statute is one such limitation.31 It lies within Congress's power to enact such legislation.32 The judgment should be affirmed.33
Whether the statute of Congress which purported to vest such power in him was invalid?34
Yes. The Act of July 12, 1876, provided that postmasters of the first class shall be appointed and may be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.37 The facts show that President Wilson removed Myers without obtaining that consent.38 The statute's requirement of Senate consent cannot stand because it trenches upon the President's exclusive removal authority.39
The Court of Claims judgment against Myers must therefore be reversed on the ground that the President possessed constitutional authority to remove him.40
The 1876 statute is invalid as an unconstitutional restriction on the President's removal power.41
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Holmes would have upheld the statute.42 He reasoned that Congress's power to create the office and fix its term necessarily includes the power to impose conditions on removal.43 Nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing so for an inferior officer such as a postmaster.44
The question in this case is whether Congress may limit the power of the President to remove an officer appointed by him with the consent of the Senate.45 The statute in plain terms does so. I see no reason to doubt that Congress may do this in the case of an inferior officer like a postmaster.46
Justice Brandeis would have upheld the statute.49 He noted that Congress has long exercised the power to limit presidential removals.50 The 1876 Act is a valid instance of that authority.51
From the beginning Congress has from time to time limited the power of the President to remove officers appointed by him with the consent of the Senate.52 The statute of 1876 is one of these.53 It is within the power of Congress to enact such legislation.54
The judgment should be affirmed.