Trump v. Slaughter · ¶212

The majority cites Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, which in 1839 addressed a territorial court’s power to remove a clerk of that court. Id., at 258. In discussing background removal principles supporting such power, Hennen recognized that the power to remove Presidential appointees was generally “vested in the President alone,” i.e., “the concurrence of the Senate” was not required. Id., at 259. It also made clear, however, that the tenure of offices could vary if “limited by law.” Ibid. A case the majority ignores, United States v. Perkins, 116 U. S. 483 (1886), held that Congress “‘no doubt’” may “‘limit and restrict the power of removal’” as to inferior officers and expressly left open the question whether Congress may do the same as to principal officers. Id., at 484–485. The majority also cites Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324 (1897), which addressed whether Congress had, in fact,…

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