581 F.Supp.3d 110
D.D.C.2022Background
- Roger Severino was appointed to the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) Council by President Trump in 2020 and reappointed as a private member on January 16, 2021.
- On February 2–3, 2021, White House Presidential Personnel Office officials informed Severino that President Biden requested his resignation and then terminated his ACUS Council appointment when he refused.
- ACUS is an unpaid, advisory independent agency; Council members (except the Chair) have statutorily prescribed 3-year terms (5 U.S.C. § 595(b)), but the agency has no adjudicatory, enforcement, or rulemaking power.
- Severino sued the President and other officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief (invoking the APA, Declaratory Judgment Act, and Larson), alleging unlawful removal.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing courts cannot enjoin the President and that the ACUS statute does not restrict the President’s removal authority.
- The court granted the motion and dismissed the amended complaint, concluding the ACUS term‑of‑office provision does not, by its plain meaning, bar presidential removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing / redressability | Severino: court can redress injury by ordering agency officials to treat him as a member (Swan). | Defendants: court cannot redress removal because it cannot enjoin the President and subordinate officials lack authority to restore him. | Court: Severino has redressability via relief against subordinate agency officials (Swan), so standing for merits is satisfied. |
| Power to enjoin the President | Severino implicitly seeks relief restoring his position; argues courts can provide equitable relief. | Defendants: courts generally cannot enjoin the President; such relief is nonjusticiable. | Court: did not decide definitively whether President can be enjoined; concluded unnecessary because statute imposes no presidential duty to obey. |
| Statutory question — does ACUS’s 3‑year term bar removal? | Severino: term-of-office language (3 years) limits President’s removal power. | Defendants: statute is silent on removal; absent explicit restriction, removal power remains incident to appointment. | Court: held the term provision is a limitation on appointment duration, not a protection from removal; no statutory removal restriction. |
| Failure to state a claim (merits) | Severino: removal unlawful under APA/Larson because statute guarantees term. | Defendants: even on merits, statute imposes no removal restriction; Supreme Court precedent forecloses Severino’s reading. | Court: Severino fails to state a claim; dismissal granted on merits and jurisdictional grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parsons v. United States, 167 U.S. 324 (term provisions limit duration, not immunity from removal)
- Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (term‑of‑office provisions construed not to restrict removal absent explicit language)
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (for‑cause protection supports congressional intent to limit removal)
- Carlucci v. Doe, 488 U.S. 93 (absent specific contrary provision, removal incident to appointment)
- Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (Larson‑Dugan sovereign immunity exception)
- Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (sovereign immunity does not bar suits challenging officer action beyond authority)
- Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973 (D.C. Cir.) (courts may redress unlawful removal by ordering subordinate officials to treat a removed member as in office)
- Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475 (limits on the judiciary’s power to enjoin the President)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (plurality addressing whether President may be enjoined; left question open)
- Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (discussing removal and tenure principles)