Supreme Court Weighs Trump’s Authority Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case on March 19, 2024, concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to dismiss leaders of independent agencies, a ruling that could fundamentally alter the landscape of federal governance. The case centers on Trump’s controversial firing of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), challenging the longstanding legal framework that protects these officials from removal without just cause.
The FTC operates under federal law, which stipulates that its members may only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Trump’s decision to remove Slaughter, who had been appointed to the commission in 2018 and confirmed for a second term under President Joe Biden, lacks any stated justification that aligns with these criteria. This legal battle has emerged from ongoing disputes over the extent of presidential power in relation to independent agencies, a matter that has been unresolved since the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. US.
The implications of this case extend beyond Slaughter’s role at the FTC. Legal experts suggest that the court’s ruling could impact various independent agencies with similar protections. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court has expressed skepticism regarding the constitutional validity of such protections. In prior cases, the court ruled that protections for the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau contradicted separation-of-powers principles. Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the president’s ability to supervise executive power stems directly from the Constitution.
In a notable turn, the court will also examine whether federal courts hold the authority to prevent a public official’s removal. This question could set a precedent for the extent to which courts can intervene in executive branch dismissals, a topic that has garnered significant attention in recent years. The court’s decision to tie Slaughter’s case to another appeal involving a Library of Congress official suggests that justices see a broader connection concerning the roles of independent officials.
Slaughter’s legal team has argued that overturning established precedent would destabilize essential institutions of governance. They contend that a significant shift in the legal framework governing independent agencies could undermine the independence that has been critical since the New Deal era.
While the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to proceed with dismissals of Biden-appointed officials, it temporarily barred Slaughter from returning to her position pending the outcome of this case. The court’s decision is expected to reflect its broader inclination to side with executive power over legislative constraints, a trend that has been evident in its recent rulings.
The historical context of this legal dispute is rooted in the 1933 dismissal of FTC commissioner William Humphrey by President Herbert Hoover. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his removal was improper, underscoring the necessity for independence in federal agencies. The upcoming ruling in Slaughter’s case not only revisits this precedent but also addresses the evolving role of independent agencies in a modern governance framework, a matter of increasing relevance in today’s political climate.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate, the outcome of this case could redefine the separation of powers and reshape the operational dynamics of federal agencies for years to come.
