The U.S. Supreme Court just handed President Donald Trump a much needed gift with its latest ruling, which concerned the question of whether or not he had the authority to give independent federal regulators the boot. Lower court judges have been overstepping their bounds as of late, opting to be activists instead of arbiters of law.
Which is why this victory is such a big deal. It’s SCOTUS putting these judges back in their place and reminding them they cannot interfere with the president’s agenda.
A ruling was handed down by SCOTUS saying, by a vote of 6-3, Trump does indeed possess the authority to fire independent federal regulators. If you step outside you might hear a faint whining sound being carried along on the breeze. That’s liberals losing their minds over yet another big MAGA win.
“The high court granted the Trump administration’s request to pause orders by federal judges that required government officials to allow board members at two independent federal agencies to stay in office after President Trump attempted to fire them. Chief Justice John Roberts had already issued an administrative stay, which temporarily put those orders on hold while the court reviewed the administration’s requests,” Trending Politics News said.
“In effect, Thursday’s ruling extends that order while the litigation continues at the appellate court level and if necessary, the Supreme Court for a final ruling. In an unsigned two-page order, the high court explained that the decision ‘reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,'” the report added.
Looking at how the decision shook out among the justices, it went right down the ideological line. Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the court order, explaining her thought process for doing so in an eight-page opinion. She, unsurprisingly, was joined by fellow Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In the opinion, Kagan wrote that she would’ve rejected the administration’s request, referring to the order as “nothing short of extraordinary.”
The foundation of the case was laid atop the president’s attempt to fire two federal officials, Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merits Systems Protection Board, a few months back. Both women were appointed by former President Joe Biden with terms set to expire in 2028.
“Wilcox and Harris argued that their firings violated federal law before a D.C. court, arguing that they could only be terminated from their positions for good cause. Two different federal judges sided with the pair and ordered the Trump Administration to allow them to continue in their current roles,” TPN’s report revealed.
Those orders were later blocked by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit. Full appeals of that block reversed the decision and allowed both women to keep their positions.
On April 9, the Trump Administration petitioned the Supreme Court to either put the orders on hold or issue a ruling on the merits of the cases. D. John Sauer, the Trump Administration’s solicitor general, argued that the orders disputed an important constitutional question by limiting the president’s ability to supervise agency heads who exercise power on behalf of the executive branch.
Sauer argued that Trump’s ability to fire the regulators was not prohibited by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court case that allowed Congress to create independent, multi-member regulatory agencies whose commissioners can only be removed for cause. The solicitor general argued that the case simply recognized a narrow exception to the president’s removal power that only relates to multi-member expert agencies.
Harris and Cox tried to make the cause that letting the order stay in place would provide President Trump with the authority to hand Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell a pink slip. The high court did not agree with that assessment. The court said the federal reserve is a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
"*" indicates required fields
