Wiener v. United States

Citations: 2 L. Ed. 2d 1377; 78 S. Ct. 1275; 357 U.S. 349; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 662Docket: 52

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 30, 1958; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Myron Wiener petitioned for back pay following his removal from the War Claims Commission, which was established by the War Claims Act of 1948 to adjudicate claims related to World War II. The Commission, composed of three members, was appointed by the President with Senate approval and had a defined lifespan, set to conclude no later than three years after the final claim filing deadline, which was extended to March 31, 1952. Wiener was confirmed as a Commissioner on June 2, 1950, but was removed by President Eisenhower on December 10, 1953, who cited the need for personnel selection aligned with national interests. Following his removal, Wiener sought recovery of his salary from that date until the Commission's abolishment on July 1, 1954, after which the Court of Claims dismissed his petition. This case raised constitutional issues regarding the President's removal powers, exploring historical precedents, including the precedent set in Myers v. United States, which affirmed the President's inherent power to remove officials, including those with quasi-judicial responsibilities.

Presidential power to remove officials is rooted in the constitutional duty to ensure laws are executed faithfully. Initially, the Myers case suggested that the President had inherent authority to remove any officials regardless of congressional restrictions. However, this view was limited by the Supreme Court in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which restricted the Myers decision to purely executive officers and explicitly rejected the notion that the President possesses inherent removal power over members of quasi-judicial bodies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. Congress established a fixed term for these positions, allowing removal only for specific reasons, indicating a deliberate limitation on presidential authority.

In the context of the War Claims Commission, which Congress specified to operate for a limited duration without mentioning removal procedures, it raises questions about the extent of presidential power to remove its members. The Court noted that the nature of the function assigned to the Commission is critical in determining removal authority. The distinction lies between officials who are part of the Executive establishment, removable at the President's discretion, and those who carry out their duties free from Executive interference. The parallel drawn between the removals by Presidents Eisenhower and Roosevelt reflects the belief that both sought to appoint their preferred Commissioners, suggesting an underlying assumption of executive control over the agencies. The absence of explicit removal provisions by Congress implies that the Commissioners were not meant to serve at the President's will, challenging the grounds for the removal in this case.

An analysis of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the War Claims Act of 1948 demonstrates that Congress did not intend for the War Claims Commission to be under executive control. The original House bill, H.R. 4044, proposed limited claims administration by the Federal Security Administrator. However, the Senate revised the bill to establish an independent Commission with defined jurisdiction to adjudicate claims without review by any other government official or court. Awards were to be paid from a War Claims Fund, ensuring better collectability than typical court judgments.

Congress had various methods for distributing funds from foreign sources but opted for adjudication due to the complexity and diversity of claims. The final legislation confirmed the Commission's judicial nature, requiring claims to be evaluated based on evidence and legal standards, free from executive or congressional influence. The text argues that the War Claims Act prevents presidential interference in claims adjudication, emphasizing that the President does not have the constitutional power to remove Commission members simply to appoint his own choices. This position aligns with the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor, which prohibits such presidential authority.

The judgment in question is reversed. Previous legal actions by the petitioner have been dismissed and the government's arguments regarding issue estoppel do not require merit consideration in this specific case. The court's decision does not suggest support for the government's claims.