Wiener, the plaintiff, sued the federal government after President Dwight Eisenhower removed him from the War Claims Commission (WCC) in 1953. The War Claims Act of 1948 created the WCC to adjudicate personal injury and property claims against the enemy arising from World War II. Commission members were to serve for the life of the WCC and the War Claims Act contained no provision for their removal. Nonetheless, Eisenhower dismissed Wiener (who had been appointed to the Commission in 1950 by President Harry Truman), justifying his action on executive prerogative and national interest. Wiener sought compensation for wages from the time of his removal to the end of the WCC's existence.
The issue in this case is whether Wiener, as a member of the WCC, served as a purely executive officer. In other words, did Wiener answer solely to the President, or did the legislation that established the WCC intend for Wiener to exercise independent judgment. An example of the former would be the Cabinet, whose members serve at the pleasure of the President. While they must answer to Congress and they are removable for perfidy, Cabinet members work for the President, who can fire them without cause, even on a whim. Contrast that situation with an independent agency such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The President appoints members to the FCC, but they are not answerable to the executive (or anyone else). They can only be removed from office for misconduct.
The United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Wiener's favor. Justice Frankfurter, who delivered the opinion of the Court, began by examining precedent. Myers v. United States held that the President had inherent constitutional power to remove officials who have ôduties of a quasi-judicial characteràwhose decisions after hearing affect interests of individuals, the discharge of which the President can not in a particular case properly influence or control.ö...