The potential expansion of presidential power over independent agencies is set to be a focal point in the Supreme Court’s upcoming term. The Court has agreed to review a longstanding precedent that currently limits the President’s authority to dismiss board members without cause. This move comes in the wake of a decision allowing former President Donald Trump to dismiss Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, while legal proceedings continue.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court’s conservative majority appears open to revisiting the 1935 decision, known as Humphrey’s Executor, which has historically protected independent agency members from being removed without just cause. The decision in question has been a cornerstone for the establishment of robust federal agencies tasked with regulating diverse sectors like labor relations and public broadcasting.
However, the Court’s recent decisions suggest a potential shift toward granting the President more direct control over these agencies. This has sparked dissent among some justices. Justice Elena Kagan, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, opposed the ruling that allowed Slaughter’s dismissal. Kagan emphasized, “Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals.”
The upcoming hearings, anticipated in December, will address whether the precedent set by the 1935 ruling should be overturned. The Justice Department supports the move to allow the President to remove board members at will, arguing it helps execute the President’s agenda more effectively. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted, “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control.”
Despite these arguments, opponents, including Slaughter’s legal team, warn that such changes could lead to regulatory decisions driven more by political motives than by expertise. They argue that Congress initially provided removal protections to maintain the impartiality and effectiveness of these regulators.
The implications of this case are far-reaching, with the potential to influence other independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve. The situation is further complicated by ongoing legal challenges from other agency members, like Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which are making their way through lower courts.
The Federal Trade Commission’s role as a consumer protection and antitrust enforcement body could face changes depending on the Court’s decision. The National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board are also watching closely, as their functions in overseeing labor practices and federal employment disputes could be impacted.
For ongoing updates on the U.S. Supreme Court’s activities, visit AP News. More information about the Federal Trade Commission can be found here.
