Supreme Court to Review President’s Authority Over Independent Agencies
In a significant move, the Supreme Court is set to evaluate whether President Donald Trump should have increased powers to influence independent agencies. This could lead to a review of a long-standing decision that restricts presidential authority in firing board members.
In a recent ruling, the court, by a 6-3 vote, permitted Trump to dismiss Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while the case unfolds. This ruling builds upon a trend where the court has allowed the president greater control over independent agencies, hinting at potential changes to a nearly 90-year precedent from the Humphrey’s Executor case, which originally stated that commissioners could only be removed for specific misconduct.
The conservative majority of the court seems poised to suggest that presidents should have broader power over these agencies since they wield executive authority. However, they may treat the Federal Reserve differently, suggesting that this case could lead to further discussions on the topic.
Justice Elena Kagan, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress has clearly set boundaries on presidential removals. Kagan voiced concerns that the court’s recent decisions are giving the President unchecked control over these agencies.
The justices are expected to hear arguments in December regarding whether to overturn the old ruling from 1935, which was a foundational moment for establishing the powers of independent federal agencies that oversee various regulatory duties.
The Justice Department supports Trump’s right to terminate board members to facilitate a more streamlined execution of his policies. They argue that when courts intervene in these matters, it can create significant obstacles for the president in implementing his agenda. Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized the need for executive power to remain intact and not be diluted by outside influences.
However, critics, including Slaughter’s attorneys, raise concerns that with the power to fire at will, regulatory decisions may become politically motivated rather than grounded in expert knowledge and impartiality. They argue that such changes should come from elected officials in Congress, not through a shift in judicial interpretation.
As the court prepares to hear this case, it underscores ongoing debates about the balance of power within the government and the role of independent agencies in American governance.
