Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al.
The Court ruled that laws insulating inferior officers from Presidential removal with two levels of "for cause" removal, as for Public Company Accounting Oversight Board officers under Sarbanes–Oxley, violated Article Two of the Constitution.· AI-written
561 U.S. 477 · No. 08-861 · 2009 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 28, 2010 · argued Dec 7, 2009
Miscellaneous · Executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states
Struck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP won.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, overturned or set aside the rest, and sent the case back for further proceedings that follow its ruling.
Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.
Under the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, officers of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board could be removed only "for good cause shown" by officers of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Officers of the SEC could only be removed by the President for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Thus, although the President could remove high-ranking members of the SEC, he could not govern and execute power to the board, thus providing a "dual layer" of protection. The Court found this "dual layer" of protection "contrary to Article II's vesting of the executive power in the President."
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2009 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Stephen BreyerWrote a dissent
John StevensJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLPProfessional organization, business, or person
- Respondent
- Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al.Securities and Exchange Commission
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article II, Section 1 (executive power)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level); Statutory construction
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 28, 2010DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part and remanded. Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP won.
- Dec 7, 2009ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the District Of Columbia U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states, newest first.
- Trump v. SlaughterLandmark · Separation of powers146 S. Ct. 2283Jun 29, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2283MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers6–36–3 band
- Learning Resources v. TrumpLandmark · Foreign607 U.S. 229Feb 20, 2026 · 607 U.S. 229MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited601 U.S. 416May 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 416Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- Collins v. Yellen141 S. Ct. 1761Jun 23, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1761Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- United States v. Arthrex Inc.141 S. Ct. 1970Jun 21, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1970Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPLandmark · Domestic140 S. Ct. 2019Jul 9, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2019MiscellaneousLandmark · Domestic7–27–2 band
- Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau140 S. Ct. 2183Jun 29, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2183Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- NLRB v. SW General, Inc.137 S. Ct. 929Mar 21, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 929Miscellaneous6–27–2 band
- Zivotofsky v. KerryLandmark · Foreign576 U.S. 1Jun 8, 2015 · 576 U.S. 1MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- NLRB v. Noel CanningLandmark · Separation of powers573 U.S. 513Jun 26, 2014 · 573 U.S. 513MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers9–0Unanimous band
- Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, by His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky, Petitioner v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State566 U.S. 189Mar 26, 2012 · 566 U.S. 189Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.