A crucial test of presidential authority is set to unfold at the Supreme Court, with a case that could reshape the balance of power in the US government. The future of independent agencies hangs in the balance, as President Trump's actions come under scrutiny.
In a landmark case, Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court will decide whether the removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) violate the separation of powers. This decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially dismantling safeguards that have insulated independent agencies from political influence for decades.
The case stems from President Trump's decision to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, an FTC commissioner, without cause. This move sparked a legal battle, with Slaughter arguing that her removal was illegal under federal law, which limits a commissioner's removal to specific instances of misconduct.
But here's where it gets controversial: the Supreme Court's conservative justices have been chipping away at a 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which allowed Congress to protect certain independent agency members from presidential removal. In recent years, this precedent has been weakened, with removal protections for officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Housing Finance Agency being overturned.
Since returning to the White House, President Trump has sought to expand his power, firing numerous Democratic-appointed members of independent boards and commissions. Slaughter was one of the victims of this campaign, receiving an email informing her that her service was inconsistent with the administration's priorities.
Slaughter sued to get her job back, and a federal district court ruled in her favor, finding her removal unlawful. However, this decision was just the beginning of a legal back-and-forth, with appeals and temporary orders keeping her fate uncertain.
And this is the part most people miss: the Supreme Court's decision could significantly alter the structure of the federal government. If the removal protections for FTC commissioners are invalidated, it could set a precedent that reaches beyond the commission, potentially affecting other independent agencies.
Professor Brian Fitzpatrick predicts that the high court will rule that the president needs control over those helping him execute the laws. This could curtail Congress' power to impose limits on the president's removal authority.
The Trump administration argues that the Constitution grants the president 'illimitable' authority over officers who wield executive power on his behalf. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends that removal protections leave the president with subordinate officers, hindering his ability to ensure the faithful execution of the laws.
Congress has established more than two dozen independent agencies with removal protections, aiming to shield them from political pressure. But the Trump administration argues that the modern FTC, with its expanded executive powers, is different from the agency of 90 years ago.
Slaughter's legal team warns of the broad impacts of overturning the 1935 precedent, stating that it would destabilize institutions integral to US governance. They argue that the current structure of independent agencies, with members from both parties serving staggered terms, leads to more modest actions and better protects individual liberty.
Legal scholar Peter Shane emphasizes the importance of political minority representation on these agencies, acting as a watchdog and preventing presidential sabotage. He warns that a president can kneecap an agency by depriving it of a quorum or genuine bipartisanship.
The Supreme Court's characterization of an agency's powers will be crucial. If the court views independent agencies as wielding considerable executive power, it could bring them under the president's control. More than 200 members of Congress have argued that protected multimember boards represent a compromise between the legislative and executive branches, and invalidating these protections could have drastic consequences for the federal government.
So, what's at stake? The future of independent agencies, the balance of power between the branches of government, and the potential for a more centralized executive authority. The Supreme Court's decision could reshape the landscape of American governance, and the implications are far-reaching. What do you think? Should independent agencies be protected from at-will removal, or is this a necessary step to strengthen presidential authority? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.
