Trump v. Cook · ¶53

Indeed, even the Government concedes that Congress, at least sometimes, should be taken to have implicitly incorporated these procedural requirements. The Government acknowledges, for instance, that a statute limiting removal to “specified causes”—like inefficiency or malfeasance— would require pretermination “notice and a hearing,” because “this Court expressly recognized” as much in “both Shurtleff and Reagan.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 30; see also id., at 58 (reiterating the point). But Shurtleff and Reagan said the same about statutes, like the one at issue here, that promise officeholders a term of years—indeed, they said so in the exact same sentence. See Shurtleff, 189 U. S., at 314 (“[W]here causes of removal are specified by Constitution or statute, as also where the term of office is for a fixed period, notice and hearing are essential.” (quoting Reagan, 182 U. S., at 425; emphasis…

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