Trump v. Slaughter · ¶63

For that reason, Humphrey's is now far out of step with our cases, which have all but limited it to its facts. See supra, at 447–448. We long ago retreated from Hum phrey's. We applied it only once, in 1958, to a solely adjudicatory body that dealt with a limited category of claims for compensation from those imprisoned or interned in the Second World War. Wiener v. United States, 357 U. S. 349, 355– 356. And even then, our constitutional analysis spanned only one brisk paragraph, as the case focused on the question whether the statute limited the President's power at all. See id., at 356. Since then, we have undermined Hum phrey's premises at every turn. To persist in Humphrey's would require us to depart from almost every case on the subject we have decided since.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.