Trump v. Cook · ¶143

When Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act, there was no “‘broad and unquestioned’” judicial consensus that a “term of years limited only by removal ‘for cause,’” ante, at 18, 21, forbade removals without notice and a hearing. In point of fact, many courts held the opposite. A “for cause” removal provision, courts explained, “not only fails to require any hearing or proceeding, but also strongly implies that the removal shall be summary, and without any antecedent proceeding.” In re Carter, 141 Cal. 316, 321, 74 P. 997, 998 (1903). When an officer was “removable for cause,” a court had no power to “review his action for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the causes,” even when the “order of removal” specified no cause. United States ex rel. Garland v. Oliver, 17 D. C. 47, 56 (1887). “[W]here the appointing power may remove for cause,” it followed that the removed officer…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.