The Humphrey's Executor v. United States case in 1934 was a significant ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that established limits on presidential power to remove certain executive officials without Senate approval. The case arose when President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William E. Humphrey, a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who had been appointed during the previous administration and confirmed by the Senate for a seven-year term. Roosevelt argued he could dismiss any executive branch official under his inherent constitutional powers, but Humphrey sued for back pay after his dismissal. In its decision, the court ruled against Roosevelt stating that FTC was an independent regulatory agency meant to act with impartiality and not subject to total control or influence from Presidential authority; thus, members couldn't be removed at will by the president alone without just cause as it would undermine their independence and violate separation of powers principles embedded in Constitution. This landmark judgment set precedent limiting presidential power over independent agencies' personnel decisions unless there is inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Humphrey's Executor v. United States, Justice James Clark McReynolds argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by interfering with executive power. He contended that it was not within the Court's purview to dictate how and when a President could remove an appointed official from office. According to him, this decision undermined Presidential authority and disrupted the separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed that William E. Humphrey’s removal from his position at Federal Trade Commission by President Franklin D Roosevelt was justified due to insubordination and inefficiency allegations against him which were sufficient grounds for dismissal under existing law.