Explained: US Supreme Court to review Humphrey’s Executor limiting President’s powers

What is Humphrey’s Executor?

Humphrey’s Executor v United States, or simply Humphrey’s Executor, is a Supreme Court decision passed in response to what it perceived as presidential overreach in the functioning of federal institutions. The 1935 ruling found that the President did not enjoy “illimitable power of removal” of officials heading agencies created by Congress (such as the Federal Trade Commission).

Specifically, it established that such officials cannot be removed for political reasons alone, and reaffirmed the independence of such agencies from the White House.

“For it is quite evident that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter’s will,” Justice George Sutherland held.

Who was William Humphrey?

William E Humphrey (Wikimedia Commons)

William E Humphrey was one of the five commissioners of the FTC and a former Republican Congressman. He was appointed to the post in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge, a champion of the free market, and reappointed in 1931 for a seven-year tenure by another Republican, President Herbert Hoover.

In 1933, President Franklin D Roosevelt launched the so-called “New Deal”, a set of sweeping Keynesian economic reforms instituted to combat the effects of the Great Depression. This marked the official end of “laissez-faire” capitalism — one in which the government largely stayed away from economic matters — in the US. However, not all federal officials, especially Humphrey, were willing to toe the line to help FDR implement such a tectonic shift in American economic policy.

After trying in vain to force Humphrey’s resignation, FDR fired him, ignoring a rule that allowed the President to remove a commissioner or agency head only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”. Humphrey appealed his dismissal to the Supreme Court and sought compensation for his continued employment.

He died in 1934, but his executor (the person entrusted with managing his estate) proceeded with the case. The ensuing lawsuit would establish a lasting precedent for handling the dismissals of top federal bosses.

Lasting legacy of the rule

Over the years, the US Congress has relied on Humphrey’s Executor to create and expand the powers of multiple similar agencies, including the Federal Reserve (which functions like central banks in other countries). The Fed sets the United States’ monetary policy and is supposed to act based on economic logic rather than partisan motivations.

The conservative majority Supreme Court has long held a cynical view of the implications of Humphrey’s Executor — that the President is not all-powerful even in the executive. Past rulings of the Conservative apex court have championed the so-called “unitary executive” theory, which, in its strongest form, would give presidents legal control over every federal job that’s not part of Congress or the judiciary.

While the majority has thus far maintained that the case of the Federal Reserve may be different, in that it does not answer to the president, much rests on whether the court will pass an emergency order permitting Trump to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors.

If the court approves Cook’s dismissal, it could undermine the Fed’s long-held reputation of being the world’s most powerful central bank, one that has historically enjoyed a good degree of autonomy from political influence. This has also historically maintained investors’ confidence in the US dollar, which today is the world’s foremost reserve currency.

This is an updated version of an explainer published in April 2025.