In a case that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power within the U.S. government, the Supreme Court's conservative majority on Monday signaled a readiness to grant President Donald Trump sweeping authority to remove officials from key independent federal agencies—a move that would dramatically expand presidential power and potentially dismantle a 90-year-old legal precedent.
The justices heard arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that centers on President Trump's firing in March of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The core question is whether a president can fire officials from independent agencies for any reason, or only for specific causes like "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office," as current law for the FTC stipulates.
Challenging a "Decaying Husk" of a Precedent
Arguing for the Trump administration, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer took direct aim at a landmark 1935 Supreme Court ruling known as Humphrey's Executor. That decision established that "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" agencies like the FTC could be insulated from at-will presidential removal to ensure their political independence.
Sauer labeled this longstanding precedent an "indefensible outlier" and a "decaying husk" of a decision that should be overturned. He argued that it unconstitutionally limits the President's control over the executive branch.
Conservative justices appeared sympathetic to this view. Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, suggested that "broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real-world problems for individual liberty."
Liberal Justices Warn of Destroying "The Structure of Government"
The court's three liberal justices mounted a forceful defense of the existing system, warning that overturning the precedent would have severe and far-reaching consequences.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply challenged the administration's lawyer, stating, "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government, and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent."
Justice Elena Kagan pressed on the practical implications, questioning where such a ruling would lead and noting that civil service protections for federal employees have existed for over a century. Lawyer Amit Agarwal, representing Rebecca Slaughter, argued that independent commissions with removal protections have been part of the American government "since 1790."
A Decision with National Implications
The FTC, established in 1914 to combat unfair business practices, is designed as a bipartisan body with no more than three of its five commissioners from the same political party. A ruling for Trump would not only affect the FTC but could also apply to other pivotal independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Reserve, potentially bringing them under direct presidential control.
A preview of the court's leanings may have been seen in September when the same 6-3 conservative majority issued an emergency order allowing Slaughter's firing to stand while the case was being decided. A final ruling is expected by June 2025.
If the Court sides with President Trump, it would mark one of the most significant expansions of presidential authority in decades, centralizing power in the White House and diminishing the independence of agencies long tasked with regulating the nation's economy, communications, and financial systems free from direct political influence.
*Source: BBC News, Associated Press, Reuters, and SCOTUSblog analysis of oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter.*
Comments
Post a Comment