Supreme Court to Revisit Landmark Ruling, Potentially Expanding Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court has announced it will revisit a nearly century-old landmark decision, potentially granting presidents, including Donald Trump, significantly expanded power to dismiss leaders of independent federal agencies. This pivotal move could reshape the balance of power within the U.S. government, impacting a vast array of regulatory functions from consumer protection to labor relations.
High Court Agrees to Hear Challenge to 1935 Precedent
In a consequential 6-3 decision on Monday, the nation’s highest court agreed to hear a case that challenges the 1935 ruling of Humphrey’s Executor. This precedent currently dictates that presidents can only remove commissioners of independent agencies for specific reasons, such as ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,’ rather than at will.
Interim Ruling Allows Immediate Firing of FTC Member
Simultaneously, the conservative majority on the court allowed President Trump to proceed with the immediate firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while the broader legal challenge unfolds. This interim ruling marks the latest in a series of similar decisions by the court concerning presidential dismissal powers over independent agency officials.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent, expressing alarm over the erosion of agency independence. “Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals,” Kagan wrote, lamenting that “the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President.” The majority, following typical emergency docket procedures, did not provide detailed reasoning for allowing Slaughter’s immediate removal, though previous court indications suggest a lean towards broader presidential removal power when agencies exercise executive functions.
The Legacy of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States
The case, which the justices will hear in December, specifically scrutinizes the legacy of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This ruling emerged from President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to remove William Humphrey from the FTC in 1933, a move Humphrey resisted, arguing his statutory protection against at-will dismissal. The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in 1935 sided with Humphrey, establishing a critical check on presidential authority and laying the groundwork for the modern independent regulatory state. This framework was designed to insulate expert agencies like the FTC, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) from direct political interference, allowing them to make decisions based on expertise rather than partisan shifts.
Arguments for Expanded Presidential Power
Conservative legal scholars have long criticized the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, contending that it unduly limits a president’s constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch and implement their agenda. The Justice Department, representing President Trump, echoes this sentiment. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control,” suggesting that courts lack the power to order reinstatement, only back pay.
Concerns Over Agency Independence and Politicization
Conversely, attorneys for Rebecca Slaughter and other agency officials argue that empowering presidents to fire board members at will would fundamentally undermine the independence and impartiality of these agencies. They contend that such a change would politicize regulatory decisions, replacing expert-driven governance with political expediency. “If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives,” Slaughter’s legal team asserted.
Urgency Underscores Constitutional Significance
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case unusually early, bypassing the full lower court process, underscores the urgency and significance of the constitutional questions at stake. While the court declined to immediately take up similar appeals from Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, these cases will continue to develop in lower courts and highlight a broader push to redefine executive power.
Far-Reaching Implications for Regulatory Stability
The implications of overturning Humphrey’s Executor are far-reaching. Weakening the independence of agencies could lead to volatile policy shifts with each new administration, potentially disrupting crucial regulatory stability. Here are some examples of agencies that could be affected:
- The FTC: Enforces consumer protection laws and antitrust legislation, impacting major industries and everyday Americans.
- The NLRB: Investigates unfair labor practices and supervises union elections, directly affecting workers’ rights.
- The MSPB: Adjudicates disputes from federal employees.
However, the court has previously hinted that the Federal Reserve might retain greater autonomy, a prospect that may be further tested by the case of fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook. The upcoming arguments in December will be a landmark moment in American constitutional law, determining the future scope of presidential power and the autonomy of federal regulatory bodies.
