The removal-power debate
Can the President fire the head of an agency whenever he wants? The Constitution doesn't say in so many words, and the Supreme Court's answer has swung back and forth for nearly a century.
Myers (1926), a broad presidential power
In Myers v. United States, the Court struck down a law requiring Senate consent to fire a postmaster, suggesting the President has a broad constitutional power to remove executive officers he appoints.
Humphrey's Executor (1935), the exception
Nine years later, the Court upheld for-cause protection for Federal Trade Commissioners, reasoning that a multi-member expert commission exercising 'quasi-legislative' and 'quasi-judicial' power could be insulated from at-will removal. Every independent regulatory commission rests on this exception.
Seila Law (2020) & Collins (2021), narrowing it
The Court held that an agency headed by a single director, the CFPB, then the FHFA, cannot be shielded by for-cause removal; such a director serves at the President's will. The Humphrey's exception was confined to genuinely multi-member bodies.
Why it matters now
With the single-director exception closed and the multi-member exception under renewed challenge, just how far Congress may insulate any agency from the President is among the most actively litigated questions in public law. The answer determines how 'independent' these agencies really are, which is why several entities here carry a status note rather than a flat claim.