This is a list of cases reported in volume 272 of United States Reports, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1926 and 1927. Justices of the Supreme Court at the time of volume 272 U.S. The Supreme Court is established by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which says: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . .". The size of the Court is not specified; the Constitution leaves it to Congress to set the number of justices. Under the Judiciary Act of 1789 Congress originally fixed the number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associate justices). Since 1789 Congress has varied the size of the Court from six to seven, nine, ten, and back to nine justices (always including one chief justice). When the cases in volume 272 were decided the Court comprised the following nine members: Notable Cases in 272 U.S. Myers v. United States In Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), the Supreme Court held that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. It was distinguished in 1935 by Humphrey's Executor v. United States. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), however, the Supreme Court interpreted Myers as establishing that the President generally has unencumbered removal power. Myers was the first Supreme Court case to address the President's removal powers. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), is a landmark Supreme Court decision approving the power of local government to establish rules of zoning. The Court's ruling that local ordinance zoning is a valid exercise of the police power bolstered zoning in the United States and influenced other countries. At the time of Euclid, zoning was a relatively new concept, and there had been complaints that it was an unreasonable intrusion into private property rights for a government to restrict how an owner might use property. The Court, in holding that there was valid government interest in maintaining the character of a neighborhood and in regulating where certain land uses should occur, allowed for the subsequent explosion in zoning ordinances across the country. The Court has never heard a case seeking to overturn