Key Takeaways:
- The Supreme Court is considering a case that could limit the power of the presidency and allow the president to fire the heads of independent agencies without cause.
- The case involves the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the firing of its chair, Rebecca Slaughter, by President Donald Trump.
- The court’s conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been increasing the power of the presidency in recent years.
- The case could have implications for the future of independent federal agencies and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
- The court’s decision could also affect the job security of other officials, including Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her firing by Trump.
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case that could have significant implications for the power of the presidency and the role of independent federal agencies. The case, which involves the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), centers on the question of whether the president has the authority to fire the heads of independent agencies without cause. The court’s conservative majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has been steadily increasing the power of the presidency in recent years, and this case could be the next step in that trend.
The History of Humphrey’s Executor
The case has its roots in a 90-year-old decision, Humphrey’s Executor, which established that the president cannot fire the heads of independent agencies without cause. The decision was seen as a limitation on the power of the presidency and was intended to ensure that independent agencies could operate free from political interference. However, proponents of the unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has complete control over the executive branch, have long argued that the decision was incorrect and that the president should have the power to fire the heads of independent agencies at will.
The Unitary Executive Theory
The unitary executive theory has been gaining traction in recent years, with conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas arguing that the president has complete control over the executive branch. The theory holds that the president has the power to fire the heads of independent agencies, as well as other executive branch officials, without cause. This theory has been embraced by President Donald Trump, who has used it to justify his efforts to fire officials who he sees as disloyal or incompetent.
The Current Case
The current case involves the FTC, which was at the center of the Humphrey’s Executor decision. The court is being asked to consider whether the president has the power to fire the chair of the FTC, Rebecca Slaughter, without cause. The Justice Department has argued that the president has the authority to fire Slaughter, while her lawyers argue that the firing is illegal and that the president’s power is limited by the Constitution and the Humphrey’s Executor decision.
Implications of the Case
The case has significant implications for the future of independent federal agencies and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. If the court rules in favor of the president, it could give the executive branch significant new powers and limit the ability of independent agencies to operate free from political interference. The case could also have implications for the job security of other officials, including Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, who is challenging her firing by Trump.
Historical Context
Legal historians and scholars have weighed in on the case, arguing that the court’s interpretation of the Constitution and the history of the removal power is incorrect. They argue that the Constitution and the history of the country’s early years support the idea that the president’s power to fire officials is limited, and that independent agencies were intended to be free from political interference. The historians have filed briefs with the court, providing context and history that could lead the court to revise its views on the removal power.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for the power of the presidency and the role of independent federal agencies. The court’s conservative majority has been increasing the power of the presidency in recent years, and this case could be the next step in that trend. However, the historical context and the arguments of legal historians and scholars suggest that the court’s interpretation of the Constitution and the history of the removal power may be incorrect. Ultimately, the court’s decision will depend on its interpretation of the Constitution and the law, and will have significant implications for the future of the country.
