Trump v. Slaughter · ¶255
Finally, the majority suggests that Humphrey’s has been “undermined” by later cases. Ante, at 20, 22. That is incorrect. See supra, at 6–7 (collecting cases reaffirming Humphrey’s). Morrison did not “‘repudiat[e]’” Humphrey’s. Ante, at 19. It extended its holding to uphold removal protections for a distinct, inferior officer. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 687–691. The case that Morrison repudiated was Myers. See 487 U. S., at 687 (rejecting “the implication of some dicta in Myers” that “the President’s power to remove . . . was . . . ‘all-inclusive’”). In Free Enterprise Fund, the Court accepted the lawfulness of “one level of good-cause protection” for the SEC. 561 U. S., at 484. Although Seila Law criticized Humphrey’s at times, its conclusion was simply that Humphrey’s could not resolve the distinct question at issue. 591 U. S., at 215–216, and n. 2, 229. Each of these cases left…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.