Key Takeaways:
- The Supreme Court is hearing a case that could end the independence of independent agencies and reshape the balance of power between Congress and the president.
- The case involves Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, who was removed from her position by the Trump administration.
- The Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court’s 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor was flawed and that independent agencies wield significant executive power.
- The case has implications for the independence of multimember agencies and the balance of power between Congress and the president.
- The Supreme Court’s decision could overturn a 90-year-old precedent and have far-reaching consequences for the federal government.
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court is set to hear a landmark case that could have significant implications for the independence of federal agencies and the balance of power between Congress and the president. The case involves Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who was removed from her position by the Trump administration in March. Slaughter was appointed to the FTC in 2018 by President Trump to fill a Democratic seat, and her term was supposed to end in 2029. However, she received an email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel informing her that she was being removed from office, effective immediately, due to her "continued service on the FTC being inconsistent with the Trump Administration’s priorities."
The History of Independent Agencies
The FTC was created by Congress in 1914 as a bipartisan, independent agency tasked with protecting the American economy from unfair methods of competition. By law, the five-member commission can have no more than three members of the same political party, and commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." This precedent was upheld in the 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president does not have the power to remove members of independent agencies for ideological disagreements. The court ruled that the duties of independent agencies are "neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative." Since then, Congress has created many more multimember, independent agencies whose members can only be removed for cause.
The Trump Administration’s Argument
The Trump administration argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s Executor was flawed due to a misunderstanding of the FTC’s functions at the time. The administration maintains that the FTC did, in fact, exercise executive power and that those powers have only grown in the decades since. The administration also points to the fact that the Supreme Court has chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor in recent years, including a decision that permitted Trump to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Trump administration argues that independent agencies wield significant executive power and that the president should have the authority to remove members of these agencies for any reason.
Implications of the Case
The case has significant implications for the independence of multimember agencies and the balance of power between Congress and the president. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump administration, it could give the president sweeping authority to remove members of independent agencies, potentially undermining their independence and ability to make decisions based on the merits of a case. On the other hand, if the court rules in favor of Slaughter, it could preserve the independence of these agencies and ensure that they can continue to make decisions without fear of political interference. The case also has implications for the future of independent agencies and the role of the president in shaping the federal government.
A Clash of Views
Slaughter believes that it is vital for the Supreme Court to preserve the independence of bipartisan multimember agencies and allow her to be reinstated. "Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people," she said. "That is what Americans deserve from their government." On the other hand, James M. Burnham, an attorney who has served in both Trump administrations, offered an opposing view. "I don’t think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government," he argued. "I don’t think they’ve ever been independent because I think the removal protections have been unconstitutional from the beginning."
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching consequences for the federal government and the balance of power between Congress and the president. The court’s ruling will determine the fate of independent agencies and their ability to make decisions without fear of political interference. The case is a significant test of the Supreme Court’s willingness to uphold the principles of independence and impartiality that are essential to the functioning of the federal government. The court’s decision will be closely watched by scholars, policymakers, and the general public, and its implications will be felt for years to come.