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 CourtListenerCited by
80 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Arnett v. KennedySupreme Court· 1974-06-17· cited 2,038×
- Myers v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1926-10-25· cited 897×
- Bowsher v. SynarSupreme Court· 1986-07-07· cited 839×
- Humphrey's v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1935-05-27· cited 615×
- Swan v. ClintonD.C. Circuit· 1996-11-22· cited 212×
- Bailey v. RichardsonD.C. Circuit· 1950-06-05· cited 154×
- De Castro v. Board of Comm'rs of San JuanSupreme Court· 1944-05-29· cited 115×
- Donald G. Adams v. Daniel Walker, A/K/A Dan Walker, Individually and as Governor of the State of IllinoisSeventh Circuit· 1974-02-25· cited 102×
- Synar v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia· 1986-02-07· cited 96×
- Federal Election Commission v. Nra Political Victory FundD.C. Circuit· 1993-10-25· cited 92×
- United States v. Harry Eugene ClaiborneNinth Circuit· 1984-03-05· cited 82×
- Collins v. YellenSupreme Court· 2021-06-23· cited 79×
- Kalaris v. DonovanD.C. Circuit· 1983-01-04· cited 74×
- PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection BureauD.C. Circuit· 2018-01-31· cited 67×
- Peter Kuretski v. Commissioner of IRSD.C. Circuit· 2014-06-20· cited 61×
- Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight BoardD.C. Circuit· 2008-08-22· cited 58×
- Pearson v. StateTennessee Supreme Court· 1975-03-10· cited 53×
- Patrick Collins v. Steven Mnuchin, SecretarFifth Circuit· 2019-09-06· cited 51×
- Harry Calcutt III v. FDICSixth Circuit· 2022-06-10· cited 38×
- Love v. United StatesEighth Circuit· 1939-11-21· cited 32×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.