Warning

Info

LSD+ Case Briefs

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Read as much content as you want during your trial. Cancel any time and keep access for the full 14 days.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)

Supreme Court of the United States - 295 U.S. 602

Contributed by LegalWriter

The President can only remove the Federal Trade Commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

ICRA

Issue

Can the President remove the Federal Trade Commissioner for reasons other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” under the Federal Trade Commission Act?

Conclusion

No. The President can only remove the Federal Trade Commissioner for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” The Federal Trade Commission Act is constitutional because Congress can limit the President’s removal power over officers whose work is not fully within the executive branch because the work contains quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial elements. 

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Rule

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Analysis

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Brief Facts & Holding

Facts

  • The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA) provides that a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission can only be “removed by the President for
  • inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office
  • .” President Roosevelt fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey. After Humphrey’s death, his estate sued the United States government for back pay, claiming that Roosevelt violated the FTCA by firing Humphrey without showing that he was inefficient, neglectful, or malfeasant. The government claimed that the limitations of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” were an
  • unconstitutional
  • restriction on the President’s removal power. The issue of the constitutionality of the FTCA’s removal provision was certified to the Supreme Court.

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Holding

  • Hey! This is the holding for Pennoyer v. Neff. It probably isn't the holding for the brief you're looking at. Join LSD+ for full access.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached to satisfy an unrelated claim, despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • A named property within the court's jurisdiction is attached as the basis for the suit (e.g., to quiet title), despite the owner of said property being a non-resident of the state.
  • An individual is sued who is a resident of the state, or who has been served with process while physically located within the state.
  • jurisdiction - Neff is neither a resident, nor was served while within the state. Service by publication may be valid for an
  • proceeding, where the owner would be made aware of the suit due to their property being seized, but not for
  • jurisdiction - the action was on the basis of a suit to receive payment owed, and did not relate directly to a property within the state.
  • jurisdiction, as the Oregon property was not attached to the initial suit, but rather was added in after the suit happened - note that Neff did not even purchase the property until after the suit had concluded.
  • Accordingly, the Oregon court did not have jurisdiction over the initial suit between Neff and his lawyer.
  • Enforcement of a judgment without jurisdiction denies due process!
  • Additionally, although judgments rendered by other states are entitled to full faith and credit, if that state did not have jurisdiction to render the judgment, it loses such entitlement.
Case Deep Dive
Majority opinion by Mr. Justice Sutherland
  • Short Summary
  • Slide right/left for more/less details
  • Full Case Text

LSD+ exclusive

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to this brief's summary.
Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. . Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua

Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, . Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum

Join LSD+

Energize your law school studying with LSD+ for only $19 per month. Join over 40,000 applicants who have used LSD to crush admissions and empower yourself to crush 1L and beyond. With LSD+, you’ll get immediate access to many nice things including:

  • Full-access to over 50,000 case briefs
  • LSD’s DeepDive tool to read the case at different levels of summarization
  • Highlight-to-define to get easy to understand definitions in real time as you study
  • Social learning with LSD community case high points
  • Instantly brief over 6,000,000 cases with LSD’s cutting edge AI briefing tool
  • 14-day free trial

Humphrey's Executor v. United States

Chat for Humphrey's Executor v. United States
brief-554
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.