Wiener v. United States
357 U.S. 349 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In the absence of an explicit statutory provision for removal, the President does not have the authority to remove, without cause, a member of a quasi-judicial body whose function requires independence from executive control.
Facts:
- In 1948, Congress created the War Claims Commission to adjudicate claims for compensation by those who suffered injury or property damage during World War II.
- The governing statute specified that the Commission would consist of three members appointed by the President with Senate consent, and defined their tenure by the life of the Commission, but made no provision for removal.
- In 1950, President Truman appointed Wiener to the Commission, and the Senate confirmed him.
- On December 10, 1953, President Eisenhower removed Wiener from his position after Wiener refused a request to resign.
- The stated reason for the removal was the President's desire to complete the Commission's work with 'personnel of my own selection.'
Procedural Posture:
- After his removal, Wiener brought suit in the U.S. Court of Claims seeking to recover his salary from the date of his removal until the date the Commission was abolished.
- A divided Court of Claims dismissed Wiener's petition.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Claims' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the President have the authority to remove a member of an adjudicatory body, such as the War Claims Commission, without cause, when the statute creating the body is silent on the matter of removal?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. The President does not have the authority to remove a member of an adjudicatory body like the War Claims Commission without cause, simply because he wishes to appoint his own personnel. The Court distinguished this case from Myers v. United States, which concerned a purely executive official, and aligned it with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which involved a member of a quasi-judicial body. The determinative factor is the nature of the function Congress vested in the commission. Because the War Claims Commission was established as an independent adjudicatory body intended to be free from executive influence in its decision-making, an implied limitation on the President's removal power must be inferred. Allowing the President to remove commissioners at will would create a 'Damocles' sword' hanging over the commission, thereby undermining the independence Congress intended it to have.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces and expands the precedent set in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. It establishes that the limitation on the President's removal power over members of independent agencies is not contingent on Congress explicitly stating for-cause removal protections in the statute. Instead, courts will infer such a limitation based on the nature and function of the agency itself. This case solidifies the functionalist approach to separation of powers, strengthening the independence of quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative administrative bodies from direct presidential control.
Unlock the full brief for Wiener v. United States