Supreme Court Considers Expanding Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies
The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to enhance presidential influence over independent federal agencies, based on discussions held on Monday. The case centers around President Donald Trump’s dismissal of board members, a move that the court’s conservative majority seems inclined to support.
At the heart of the matter lies a potential overturning of a long-standing decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, which has historically limited presidential power to remove agency board members to ensure decisions are made without political interference. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the significant power these officials wield over individual liberties and major industries, without direct accountability.
Concerns were raised by the liberal justices about granting excessive power to the president. Justice Elena Kagan warned that overturning Humphrey’s Executor might lead to “massive unchecked, uncontrolled power” for the executive branch.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out the potential loss of expertise in federal agencies, noting that replacing qualified professionals with political loyalists could harm public interests. “So having a President come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” Jackson stated.
The Trump administration’s push marks an unprecedented attempt to assert control over agencies that regulate various sectors, including energy, safety, and labor. While the conservative justices, including those appointed by Trump, seemed focused on crafting a lasting decision, they remain wary of granting excessive power to any single administration.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, argued for the dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter without cause, urging the court to discard Humphrey’s Executor, which he described as enabling a “headless fourth branch” of government.
Chief Justice John Roberts referred to the old decision as “a dried husk,” indicating a possible shift towards allowing more presidential control. The court has already indicated support for the administration by permitting the removal of Slaughter and other board members during ongoing legal proceedings.
Other officials dismissed by Trump include members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and a copyright official, Shira Perlmutter, have thus far retained their positions. The court has suggested it views the Federal Reserve differently and is considering the legality of Cook’s potential removal.
A related issue in the Slaughter case could impact Cook’s situation. The court must decide if judges have the authority to reinstate officials after illegal dismissals. Justice Neil Gorsuch indicated that while back pay might be recoverable, reinstatement may not be an option, potentially affecting Cook’s employment status.
Under Chief Justice Roberts, the court has gradually eroded laws limiting presidential firing powers. In 2020, a ruling allowed Trump to dismiss the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite protections similar to those in Humphrey’s Executor. The court is set to hear further arguments on this issue in January.
The historical context involves a 1935 case where President Franklin Roosevelt fired an FTC member who opposed his New Deal policies. Following the member’s death, a lawsuit for back pay ensued, resulting in a unanimous decision upholding the law that restricted presidential removal powers to cases of inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance.
