Trump v. Cook · ¶33

The Government relies on Reagan v. United States, 182 U. S. 419 (1901), but that case offers it no help. In Reagan, as the Government explains, we said that the removal at issue was “a matter of discretion and not reviewable,” id., at 425—but not because all removals are. Just the reverse. The statute at issue in Reagan limited removal for certain court officers to “causes prescribed by law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The trouble was that no “causes for removal . . . were ever affirmatively specified by Congress.” Ibid. The plaintiff thus argued that he was entitled to “hold office during life,” or at least until “Congress passes a law defining such causes.” Ibid. We rejected his argument. We said that we could not review the removal because no enumerated causes were “defined” by law “nor removal for cause provided for” by the statute. Ibid. (emphasis added). The statute at issue here, by…

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