Trump v. Slaughter · ¶239
No other decisions of this Court, as to other agency structures, suggest any inability to police the bounds established by Humphrey's. Contra, ante, at 448–449. In fact, they show the opposite. Morrison accepted and broadened Hum phrey's functionalist approach, clarifying only that the exercise is not meant to “define rigid categories” of officials who exercise executive power or perform executive functions, “but to ensure that Congress does not interfere with the President's” constitutional duties. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 689–690. As to the officer at issue in Morrison, the Court held that the removal protections left the President with “ample” control. Id., at 692. Free Enterprise Fund recognized Humphrey's rule, accepted it as to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and held that a second layer of protection for a subsidiary Board (a “novel structure” never considered…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.