Wiener v. United States

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Under “Damocles’ Sword”: Considering Removal Protections and the Take Care Clause in Light of SEC v. Jarkesy

    Zuckerman Spaeder LLPAaron ChouFebruary 13, 2024

    ed States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), the Supreme Court rejected a postmaster’s claim that he had been wrongfully removed before the expiration of his term without the consent of the Senate. In holding that the President must have the power to remove the postmaster, the Court noted, “there may be duties of a quasi judicial character imposed on executive officers and members of executive tribunals whose decisions after hearing affect interests of individuals, the discharge of which the President cannot in a particular case properly influence or control.” Id. at 135. The Court went on: “But even in such a case he may consider the decision after its rendition as a reason for removing the officer, on the ground that the discretion regularly entrusted to that officer by statute has not been on the whole intelligently or wisely exercised. Otherwise he does not discharge his own constitutional duty of seeing that the laws be faithfully executed.” Id.In its later decision in Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958), the Court read the intervening decision in Humphrey’s Executor as carving out an exception to presidential removal authority for “those whose tasks require absolute freedom from Executive interference.” Id. at 353. The Court unanimously concluded that the War Claims Commission was an adjudicative body requiring independence:The claims were to be “adjudicated according to law,” that is, on the merits of each claim, supported by evidence and governing legal considerations, by a body that was “entirely free from the control or coercive influence, direct or indirect,” of either the Executive or the Congress. If, as one must take for granted, the War Claims Act precluded the President from influencing the Commission in passing on a particular claim, a fortiori must it be inferred that Congress did not wish to have hang over the Commission the Damocles’ sword of removal by the President for no reason other than that he preferred to have on that Commission men of his own choosing.16Id. at 3

  2. In United States v. Arthrex, the Supreme Court Delivers A Seemingly Simple Solution That May Prove More Complicated in Practice

    Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.Dylan HaversackJune 24, 2021

    ”Second, Justice Breyer considers the Court’s decision “formalist” and a “judicial-rules-based approach,” and that instead the Court should embark on a “functional examination of the offices and duties in question.” He cites to the case of Wiener v. United States, 357 U.S. 349 (1958) as a good example of how the Court can consider “the practical consequences that are likely to follow from Congress’ chosen scheme.” Under this reasoning, Justice Breyer states, the Court’s result would be undermined because the need for expertise and the importance of avoiding political interference led Congress to grant the APJs a “degree of independence.”