Trump v. Cook · ¶50

Under our precedents, Cook was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond prior to her termination. That comes down to the words Congress chose, first in 1913, and then again in 1935. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, it gave Governors a set term in office and permitted removal only “for cause.” At that time, and indeed afterward, that form of tenure—a term of years limited only by removal “for cause”—carried with it a settled interpretation at common law, one that we had expressly adopted just a decade before. “[T]he rule,” we explained in 1901, is that “notice and hearing are essential” before an officer’s removal “where the term of office is for a fixed period.” Reagan, 182 U. S., at 425. We said the same in 1903. See Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U. S. 311, 314. Reagan and Shurtleff established the baseline against which Congress legislated, and we must construe…

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