Key Takeaways
- The Trump administration is pushing to expand control over independent federal agencies, which could lead to a reversal of a 90-year-old decision limiting presidential power to fire board members.
- The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, may overturn the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which established limits on presidential power to remove commissioners.
- The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal agencies and the power of the presidency.
- The case involves the firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter and could also affect the job security of other agency officials, including Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook.
Introduction to the Case
The Trump administration’s efforts to expand control over independent federal agencies have reached the Supreme Court, which is considering a case that could overturn a 90-year-old decision limiting presidential power to fire board members. The case involves the firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, who was removed from her position without cause by President Donald Trump. The administration’s lawyers are arguing that the president has the authority to fire Slaughter and other agency officials at will, while Slaughter’s lawyers are defending her right to remain in her position.
The History of the Case
The case has its roots in a 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, in which the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the law establishing the Federal Trade Commission and limiting the president’s power to remove a commissioner only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The decision was made in response to President Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to fire William Humphrey, a commissioner who refused to resign. The court’s decision established an important precedent for the independence of federal agencies and the limits of presidential power. However, the Trump administration is now arguing that this decision should be overturned, and that the president should have the authority to fire agency officials at will.
The Supreme Court’s Stance
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has already signaled its support for the administration’s position, allowing Slaughter and other agency officials to be removed from their jobs while their legal challenges continue. The court’s six conservative justices have indicated that they are likely to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision, while the three liberal justices have expressed opposition to the administration’s position. Chief Justice John Roberts has written a series of opinions that have steadily eroded the laws restricting the president’s ability to fire people, and has suggested that the president’s removal power is the rule, not the exception.
Implications for Agency Officials
The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal agencies and the power of the presidency. If the court overturns the Humphrey’s Executor decision, it could give the president the authority to fire agency officials at will, potentially undermining the independence of agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The decision could also affect the job security of other agency officials, including Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, who is facing allegations of mortgage fraud and has been targeted by President Trump for removal.
The Question of Reinstatement
The court is also considering a second question in the Slaughter case, which could affect Cook’s ability to remain in her job. The question is whether judges have the power to reinstate someone who has been fired illegally. Justice Neil Gorsuch has suggested that fired employees who win in court can likely get back pay, but not reinstatement. This could limit the ability of agency officials to challenge their removal and potentially undermine the independence of federal agencies. The court will hear separate arguments in January about whether Cook can remain in her job as her court challenge proceeds.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s push to expand control over independent federal agencies has significant implications for the balance of power in the federal government. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Slaughter case could have far-reaching consequences for the independence of federal agencies and the power of the presidency. As the court considers the case, it is clear that the stakes are high, and the outcome could shape the future of the federal government for years to come. The court’s decision will be closely watched by agency officials, lawmakers, and the public, as it has the potential to fundamentally alter the balance of power in the federal government.