Trump v. Slaughter · ¶57
Fast forward another few decades, and Humphrey's premises had been further undermined. In two cases, Free En terprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477 (2010), and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197 (2020), we again considered the permissibility of restrictions on the President's power of removal. In both cases, we reiterated My- ers's rule that the President exercises “general administrative control of those executing the laws” and thus must be able to “remov[e] those for whom he can not continue to be responsible.” Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 492–493 (quoting Myers, 272 U. S., at 117, 164); Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 214 (same). In both cases, we emphasized that Hum phrey's had to be read “on its own terms,” and thus applies only to agencies that perform “ `specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid.' ”…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.