Trump v. Cook · ¶63

That will not do. At minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due. Cf. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 314–315 (1950). Because Cook did not receive such process, her removal was “erroneous and void” from the start, M. Throop, Law Relating to Public Officers §364, p. 360 (1892), a principle recognized succinctly by Lord Coke as early as 1615, see Bagg’s Case, 11 Co. Rep., at 93b, 77 Eng. Rep., at 1272 (“A removal, without hearing the party removed, is bad.”).

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