Trump v. Slaughter · ¶62
Fast forward another few decades, and Humphrey’s premises had been further undermined. In two cases, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U. S. 477 (2010), and Seila Law LLC v. Con sumer 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 Myers’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 Humphrey’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 ›
slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.