Skip to main content
· 4/6/1903

Shurtleff v. United States

Citations

  • 189 U.S. 311
  • 23 S. Ct. 535
  • 47 L. Ed. 828
  • 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1354

Syllabus

<p>Where Congress creates an office and provides for the removal of the incumbent at any time for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, if the removal of the officer is sought to be made for any of those causes he is entitled to notice and a hearing; but if the President removes him without giving him notice and an opportunity to defend himself, it must be presumed that the removal was not made for any of the causes assigned in the statute.</p> <p>In the absence of constitutional or statutory provision the President can, by virtue of his general power of appointment, remove an officer, even though he were appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This power (assuming, but not deciding, that Congress could deprive the President of the right to exercise it in such a case as this) cannot be taken away by mere inference or implication, and'in the absence of plain language in the statute Congress will not be presumed to have taken it away.</p> <p>Under section 12 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 189Q, . providing for the appointment of general appraisers and their removal by the President for inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance in office, the President may also remove such officers without any of the causes specified, under his general power of removal.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that removal authority is not always “restricted to a removal for th[e] causes” set forth by statute
  • holding that removal authority is not always “restricted to a removal for th[e] causes” set forth by statute
  • holding that removal authority is not always “restricted to a removal for th[e] causes” set forth by statute
  • holding that removal authority is not always “restricted to a removal for th[e] causes” set forth by statute
  • concluding that where removal is sought pursuant to statute for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office ... the officer is entitled to notice and a hearing”
  • concluding that where removal is sought pursuant to statute for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office . . . the officer is entitled to notice and a hearing”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Peckham

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.