Trump v. Slaughter · ¶162

In later decades, the Court reaffirmed Humphrey’s rule that certain executive officers may enjoy for-cause protections. In Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 (1988), Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for a 7-to-1 Court, applied and expanded Humphrey’s in a new context, approving removal protections for an independent counsel tasked with investigating allegations of crime by high executive officers. 487 U. S., at 688–691. Rejecting the idea that the only officers who could permissibly be granted removal protections were those who exercised “‘quasi-legislative’” or “‘quasi-judicial’ powers,” the Court held that the more fundamental question was whether removal protections unduly “interfere[d] with the President’s exercise of the ‘executive power.’” Id., at 688–690. Still, the Court explained, Humphrey’s “analysis of the functions served by the officials at issue” remains “[r]elevant” to…

slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.