Legal Document

357 U.S. 349 78 Supreme Court Reporter 1275 2 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 1377 Myron WIENER, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. Number 52. Argued Nov. 18, 1957. Decided June 30, 1958. Mr. I. or Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Wachtel, New York City, for the petitioner. Sol. Gen. Judge Lee Rankin, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered opinion of Court. 1 This is a suit back pay, based on petitioner's alleged illegal removal as member War Claims Commission. The facts are not in dispute. By Act 1948, 62 Statutes-at-Large 1240, 50 Code Annotated KF65 U5 Appendix, § 2001 et seq., Congress established that Commission with 'jurisdiction to receive and adjudicate according law,' 3, claims compensating internees, prisoners war, religious organizations, §§ 5, 6 7, who suffered personal injury property damage at hands enemy connection World II. was be composed three persons, least two whom were members bar, appointed by President, advice consent Senate. wind up its affairs later than years after expiration time filing claims, originally limited but extended successive legislation first March 1, 1951, 63 112, 31, 1952, 65 28. limit Commission's life mode which tenure Commissioners defined, made no provision Commissioner. Having been duly nominated President Truman, petitioner confirmed 2, 1950, took office 8, following. On his refusal heed request resignation, he was, December 10, 1953, removed Eisenhower following terms: 'I regard it national interest complete administration amended, personnel my own selection.' day, recess appointments Commission, including post. After assembled, February 15, 1954, sent names new appointees Senate had these nominations when abolished, July Reorganization Plan 68 1279, 5 133z—15 note, issued pursuant 1949, 203, 133z seq. Thereupon, brought this proceeding recovery salary Commissioner from day last existence. A divided dismissed petition, 142 F.Supp. 910, 135 Ct.Cl. 827. We case here, 352 980, 77 382, 364, because presents variant constitutional issue decided Humphrey's Executor versus States, 295 602, 55 869, 79 L.Ed. 1611.* 3 Controversy pertaining scope limits President's power fills thick chapter our political judicial history. long stretches history, beginning very Congress, early echoes Court, laboriously traversed Myers 272 52, 47 21, 71 160, need retraced. Roosevelt's reliance upon pronouncements removing Federal Trade ground 'the aims purposes Administration respect work can carried out most effectively selection' reflected contemporaneous professional regarding significance decision. Speaking through Chief himself did restrict itself immediate before it, inherent remove postmaster, obviously an executive official. As set purpose way parenthetic casualness, announced also officials have 'duties quasi-judicial character * whose decisions hearing affect interests individuals, discharge cannot particular properly influence control.' supra, page 135, 31. view presidential deemed flow 'constitutional duty seeing laws faithfully executed.' Ibid. 4 assumption short-lived recognized officials, matter what relation their duties restrictions may imposed nature tenure. versatility circumstances often mocks natural desire definitiveness. Within less ten unanimous 1611, narrowly confined decision include only 'all purely officers.' 628, 874. explicitly 'disapproved' expressions supporting bodies. pages 626—627, 873—874. given seven-year term provided inefficiency, neglect malfeasance office. In present case, defined relatively short period during operate—that is, claims. But nothing said about removal. another instance appropriate legal must drawn congressional failure explicitness. Necessarily problem probabilities. start one certainty. agencies entrusted kind charged within lively knowledge Congress. Few contests between so recurringly attention Not significant aspect Court's special invitation Senator George Wharton Pepper, Pennsylvania, presented position bar cause celebre—and halls And essence case? It drew sharp line cleavage part Executive establishment thus removable virtue powers, those body 'to exercise judgment without leave hindrance any other official department government,' 625—626, 873, exists if fairly conferred it. differentiation derives difference functions tasks require absolute freedom interference. 'For quite evident,' again quote Executor, 'that holds pleasure another, depended maintain attitude independence against latter's will.' 629, 7 Thus, reliable factor drawing inference function vested What confided Commission? provide remain will President? For such assertion rest. Eisenhower's precisely same Humphrey. Both Presidents desired Commissioners, 'of They wanted men. terms cases identic express subject control Executive. An analysis Act, 15 41 left doubt conception creating 1948 8 history emphatically underlines fact. origin bill, H.R. 4044, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., passed House placed class Americans Japan Security Administrator inquire into report types See H.R.Rep.No.976, Sess. indubitably arm President. When bill reached Senate, struck all enacting clause, rewrote law' classes 7. adjudicating paraphernalia put test proof, finality determination 'not review court mandamus otherwise,' 11. Awards paid Fund Secretary Treasury, whereby even more assured collectability adheres judgments rendered Claims. S.Rep.No.1742, With minor amendment, see H.R.Rep.No.2439, 10—11 (Conference Report), became law. 9 has distribution among American claimants funds derived foreign sources, proceed different ways. directly; utilize Executive; resort adjudicatory process. La Abra Silver Mining company 175 423, 20 168, 44 223. appropriations dealt under practical large number diversity specific giving rise effect narrow acknowledged hands, vesting procedure Administrator. final form legislation, we seen, widened range determined adjudication. could, course, jurisdiction over District Courts fact chose establish 'adjudicate statute alter intrinsic task charged. 'adjudicated merits each claim, supported evidence governing considerations, 'entirely free coercive influence, direct indirect,' 874 either If, take granted, precluded influencing passing fortiori inferred wish hang Damocles' sword reason preferred men choosing. 10 case. involving rectitude body, nor suspensory until could act confirming appointment otherwise dealing matter. Judging nakedness presented, namely, claim like merely compelled conclude directly Constitution, none impliedly him simply philosophy explicit language well implications, precludes claim. 11 reversed. 12 Reversed. earlier quo warranto initiated dismissed; appeal moot stipulation parties. Government's contention estops relitigating certain issues does not, record, call consideration merits. urged, situation should been, 'ground why reviewed court.' Rule 24(1) Revised Rules 28 disposing matter, do mean imply support

Classification Label: 7