Key Takeaways:
- The Supreme Court is hearing a case involving President Trump’s attempt to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause, which could expand presidential power over independent agencies.
- The case, Trump v. Slaughter, challenges the constitutionality of removal protections for members of independent agencies, which have been in place since a 1935 Supreme Court decision.
- A ruling in favor of the president could have significant ramifications for the structure of the federal government and curtail Congress’ power to impose limits on the president’s removal power.
- The case has implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, as well as the independence of agencies such as the FTC.
Introduction to the Case
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a major legal battle involving President Trump’s move to oust a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a case that could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The dispute stems from Mr. Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position at the FTC without cause, despite a federal law that allows a president to fire a commissioner only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case, known as Trump v. Slaughter, could expand presidential power over independent agencies and curtail Congress’ power to impose limits on the president’s removal power.
The Background of the Case
The case has its roots in a years-long weakening of a New Deal-era ruling that has allowed Congress to shield members of independent agencies from being removed at will. In a string of recent decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices have chipped away at this precedent, most recently invalidating removal protections for leaders of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2021. The dispute over Mr. Trump’s firing of Slaughter now gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn this 90-year-old precedent entirely. A ruling in the president’s favor could have significant ramifications for the structure of the federal government and the independence of agencies such as the FTC.
The Arguments
The Trump administration has argued that the Constitution vests all executive power in the president and therefore grants him "illimitable" authority over officers who wield that power on his behalf. Removal protections for members of independent agencies, the administration argues, leave the president "saddled with subordinate officers" who prevent him from ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed. On the other hand, lawyers for Slaughter have warned that a decision overturning the 1935 precedent would have broad impacts and destabilize institutions that have been woven into the fabric of U.S. governance. They argue that multimember independent agencies are deeply ingrained in the nation’s history and tradition and are fully compatible with the Constitution’s text and structure.
The Implications
The case has significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the president, it could give the executive branch more control over independent agencies, potentially leading to more partisan decision-making. On the other hand, if the court upholds the removal protections, it could limit the president’s ability to shape the agenda of these agencies. More than 200 Democrats in Congress have argued that multimember boards that are protected from at-will removal represent a longstanding compromise between the legislative and executive branches that should not be upset by the judicial branch.
The Broader Context
The case is part of a broader trend of the Trump administration’s efforts to assert more control over independent agencies. The president has already seen some success at the Supreme Court in his bid to assert more control over these bodies, including the ability to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission without cause. The Supreme Court has also allowed the president to fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, although she has been allowed to remain in her role pending the outcome of her case. The outcome of the Trump v. Slaughter case will likely have significant implications for the future of independent agencies and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Trump v. Slaughter case has significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, as well as the independence of agencies such as the FTC. The Supreme Court’s decision will likely have far-reaching consequences for the structure of the federal government and the ability of the president to shape the agenda of independent agencies. As the court considers the constitutionality of removal protections for members of independent agencies, it must weigh the competing interests of the executive and legislative branches, as well as the potential impact on the independence and effectiveness of these agencies. Ultimately, the outcome of this case will have significant implications for the future of governance in the United States.