principal officers

Frank S. Myers was appointed postmaster at Portland, Oregon, of the first class on July 10, 1917, for a term of four years fixed by statute. On January 3, 1921, President Wilson directed his removal without the advice and consent of the Senate. Myers protested to the department that his removal was illegal and refused to surrender his office. He was, however, ousted and a successor appointed with the consent of the Senate. He brought suit in the Court of Claims for his salary from the date of his removal to the end of his term. The Court of Claims gave judgment against him. The case comes here on appeal. By act of Congress approved July 12, 1876, it was provided that postmasters of the first, second and third classes should be appointed and might be removed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The term of the office was fixed at four years.

In December 1801, William Marbury, Dennis Ramsay, Robert Townsend Hooe, and William Harper petitioned the Supreme Court for a rule requiring Secretary of State James Madison to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding delivery of their commissions as justices of the peace in the District of Columbia. The applicants had been nominated by outgoing President John Adams. The Senate had advised and consented to the appointments. Commissions in due form were signed by the President with the seal of the United States affixed by the Secretary of State. During the proceedings the Court heard testimony from Department of State clerks Jacob Wagner and Daniel Brent, who described the preparation and handling of the commissions. Wagner recalled that two commissions had been signed but could not confirm whether those of the applicants were recorded. Brent believed Marbury's and Hooe's commissions were made out. Ramsay's was omitted by mistake. None of the Adams-signed commissions for District justices were recorded. Attorney General Levi Lincoln, who had acted as Secretary of State, testified that he had seen signed and sealed commissions but did not know whether any for the applicants were ever sent out. James Marshall's affidavit stated that on March 4, 1801, he received and later returned several commissions from the Secretary of State's office, including those for Hooe and Harper. The applicants also submitted the affidavit of Hazen Kimball confirming that commissions for Marbury and Hooe were in the office on March 3, 1801. Madison did not appear or show cause after the rule was served. The motion for the writ itself was heard in the February 1803 term.

In 2002 Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as a five-member entity appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Board oversees audits of public companies and possesses authority to inspect registered accounting firms, initiate investigations, and issue sanctions. Beckstead and Watts, LLP, a Nevada accounting firm, registered with the Board. The Board inspected the firm, released a report critical of its auditing procedures, and began a formal investigation. Free Enterprise Fund, a nonprofit organization of which the firm is a member, and Beckstead and Watts sued the Board and its members, the Commission, and the United States in federal district court. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief alleging that the Board's structure violated the Constitution. The district court determined it had jurisdiction and granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in full. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, limits individual contributions to any single candidate to $1,000 per election with an overall annual limit of $25,000 per contributor, caps independent expenditures relative to a clearly identified candidate at $1,000 per year, imposes overall spending ceilings on candidates and political parties for federal campaigns, requires political committees and candidates to register and file detailed quarterly reports disclosing contributions above $10 and $100 thresholds along with expenditures, establishes the Federal Election Commission to administer and enforce the statute, and creates a system of public funding for presidential nominating conventions, primary campaigns, and general elections through taxpayer checkoffs under Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code. Plaintiffs who filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia included a candidate for the Presidency, a United States Senator seeking re-election, a potential contributor, the Committee for a Constitutional Presidency—McCarthy '76, the Conservative Party of the State of New York, the Mississippi Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Inc., the American Conservative Union, the Conservative Victory Fund, and Human Events, Inc. The defendants were the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives in their official capacities as ex officio members of the Commission, the Commission itself, the Attorney General, and the Comptroller General. Jurisdiction was invoked under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 2201, and 2202 and section 315(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. § 437h(a) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the major provisions. The district judge denied a three-judge court and transmitted the case to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which entered an order deeming the case preliminarily certified under the special review provision. The Court of Appeals remanded the case en banc to the district court to identify constitutional issues, take additional evidence, make findings of fact, and certify questions back to the court of appeals. On remand the district judge adopted extensive findings of fact and returned the augmented record. The court of appeals then sustained the legislation in large part, finding a clear and compelling interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process. The Supreme Court granted review on the certified constitutional questions arising from the Court of Appeals decision.