The Supreme Court’s decision to hear a case involving President Donald Trump’s authority to dismiss leaders of independent agencies marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over executive power. The case, set for oral arguments on December 8, revolves around Trump’s attempt to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). In March, Trump removed Slaughter along with another Democratic commissioner, though the latter has since resigned. Slaughter’s legal battle to block her removal raises questions about the limits of presidential authority and could potentially overturn decades of established precedent.
This litigation centers on the ramifications of the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, where justices ruled that presidents cannot dismiss the heads of independent regulatory agencies without justification. The forthcoming arguments are expected to challenge that long-standing view. The fact that justices have directed both the Trump administration and Slaughter to address critical questions regarding the separation of powers indicates a willingness to reconsider the limitations placed on presidential authority.
The questions posed to the lawyers are particularly revealing. Should the justices decide to overrule the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, it could open the floodgates for future removals of independent agency heads, significantly shifting the power dynamics between the executive branch and independent regulatory entities. The implications of such a ruling could resonate beyond the current case, potentially affecting how the executive branch interacts with regulatory agencies moving forward.
Significantly, the Supreme Court’s expedited consideration of this case follows a series of similar lawsuits launched by other Trump-fired Democratic board members, including Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board. This pattern reflects a broader concern among many about the president’s authority to reshape independent agencies through abrupt staff changes, which some characterize as politicization of these bodies.
The developments in Slaughter’s case could also provide insight into the Court’s stance on Trump’s efforts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in January. If the justices take a permissive view of presidential authority in the current case, it may signal an alignment of their reasoning when they hear Cook’s case next month.
The outcome could reshape the relationship between Congress and the executive. An expansion of presidential power to dismiss independent agency heads could lead to an increase in political influence over regulatory decisions. This underscores the critical nature of the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision as it may redefine executive reach and the fundamental checks and balances designed to preserve the integrity of independent regulatory agencies.
"*" indicates required fields
