Gillian Metzger

The court has also long upheld what we might call removal protections for inferior officers, which are basically officers who have somebody supervising them, even though they may also exercise some discretion. And one of the big decisions on inferior officers actually happened in 1988, and it involved the independent counsel, which was an official who was charged with investigating the

The court has also long upheld what we might call removal protections for inferior officers, which are basically officers who have somebody supervising them, even though they may also exercise some discretion. And one of the big decisions on inferior officers actually happened in 1988, and it involved the independent counsel, which was an official who was charged with investigating the

high-level members of the executive branch when they were concerned they might have acted unlawfully. And there again, the court upheld the removal restriction on the independent counsel.

high-level members of the executive branch when they were concerned they might have acted unlawfully. And there again, the court upheld the removal restriction on the independent counsel.

Yeah, right. So starting in 2010, the court has issued a series of decisions in which it has invalidated removal restrictions of a variety of sorts. First, it invalidated an arrangement where an agency that was headed by officials with removal protections was nestled inside another agency headed by officials with removal protections.

Yeah, right. So starting in 2010, the court has issued a series of decisions in which it has invalidated removal restrictions of a variety of sorts. First, it invalidated an arrangement where an agency that was headed by officials with removal protections was nestled inside another agency headed by officials with removal protections.

And then 10 years later, it invalidated the removal protection for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That was a single director who served a five-year term. And in both of these cases, the court's argument was that this arrangement represented just too much of an intrusion on the president's control over executive power and over the executive branch.

And then 10 years later, it invalidated the removal protection for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That was a single director who served a five-year term. And in both of these cases, the court's argument was that this arrangement represented just too much of an intrusion on the president's control over executive power and over the executive branch.

The idea that they espoused was that the president gets to exercise the entire executive power and And it's the president who is politically accountable and therefore needs to be able to exercise close control over these executive branch officials to ensure that the law is faithfully executed.

The idea that they espoused was that the president gets to exercise the entire executive power and And it's the president who is politically accountable and therefore needs to be able to exercise close control over these executive branch officials to ensure that the law is faithfully executed.

I think the reasoning has a lot of flaws. So the reasoning in these cases emphasizes this clause that vests the executive power in the president. But it's unclear exactly what the Constitution means by executive power.

I think the reasoning has a lot of flaws. So the reasoning in these cases emphasizes this clause that vests the executive power in the president. But it's unclear exactly what the Constitution means by executive power.

And it's at odds with the other provisions of the text of the Constitution and the structure of the Constitution to think that the president just gets to embody all of the executive power without any checks, without Congress being able to regulate the structure of the executive branch. So I think it's hard as a constitutional basis to argue.

And it's at odds with the other provisions of the text of the Constitution and the structure of the Constitution to think that the president just gets to embody all of the executive power without any checks, without Congress being able to regulate the structure of the executive branch. So I think it's hard as a constitutional basis to argue.

I think it's also really hard to argue as a matter of history. Because there's actually a longstanding history of these removal restrictions and various kinds being put on executive branch officers.

I think it's also really hard to argue as a matter of history. Because there's actually a longstanding history of these removal restrictions and various kinds being put on executive branch officers.

There is one question about what the statute gives the Fed chair as a matter of protections, and then there's a question about the constitutionality of a removal restriction. As for the statute, it's actually a hard call. The statute going—this was the 1913 Federal Reserve Act—provides for a 14-year term for the board of governors, members of the board of governors.

There is one question about what the statute gives the Fed chair as a matter of protections, and then there's a question about the constitutionality of a removal restriction. As for the statute, it's actually a hard call. The statute going—this was the 1913 Federal Reserve Act—provides for a 14-year term for the board of governors, members of the board of governors.

The Fed chair is one of the governors. And then it also provides for a four-year term for the Fed chair. The provision for the 14-year term of the board of governors expressly says that they have cause removal protection. It doesn't say—the statute does not say that for the Fed chair in the role as chair. There's a longstanding practice and convention that the Fed chair has not removed.

The Fed chair is one of the governors. And then it also provides for a four-year term for the Fed chair. The provision for the 14-year term of the board of governors expressly says that they have cause removal protection. It doesn't say—the statute does not say that for the Fed chair in the role as chair. There's a longstanding practice and convention that the Fed chair has not removed.