Abstract
The Supreme Court has inconsistently approached the remedies in unlawful removal restriction cases. This inconsistency fails to redress plaintiffs injured by unlawful executive power, blurs the separation of powers, and discourages other constitutional actors from considering their actions’ implications.3 This Note proposes a straight-forward solution to those problems.
It begins in Part I by laying out the mechanics of appointment and removal, with special attention to the constitutional and precedential intricacies of the removal power. Part II introduces the remedial problem by describing the Supreme Court’s two most recent removal cases and identifying the problematic inconsistencies. Part III dis-cusses in depth the 2021 case Collins v. Yellen and introduces the dueling remedial approaches the Justices applied in that case. Finally, Part IV expands upon and argues for Justice Gorsuch’s approach: that an unlawful removal restriction renders an official’s power per se invalid, and thus entitles successful plaintiffs to a per se remedy.
Recommended Citation
William C. Eisenhauer,
A Responsive Remedy for Unconstitutional Removal Restrictions,
97
Notre Dame L. Rev.
2195
(2022).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol97/iss5/14