Supreme Court Case Could Transform Presidential Authority Over Federal Agencies
The U.S. Supreme Court stands on the brink of a decision that may significantly shift the balance of power between the presidency and federal agencies. As the Court deliberates on Trump v. Slaughter, the focus is on whether to uphold a law that protects members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from being fired without cause.
During oral arguments on December 8, 2023, the conservative majority revealed skepticism toward nearly a century of precedent that prevents the president from dismissing FTC commissioners and similar agency heads without specific justification. This challenge could pave the way for future presidents to exert greater control over various federal agencies, altering the very fabric of the administrative state.
The case features Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner removed by former President Trump. He stated her efforts were not aligned with his administration’s priorities, but the 1914 statute restricts such firings to instances of inefficiency or misconduct. Trump’s legal team contends this limitation is unconstitutional, arguing that it undermines presidential authority.
The potential implications reach far beyond the FTC. A ruling favoring Trump could significantly broaden presidential influence over many agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Currently, numerous federal agencies benefit from similar protections, shielding their commissioners from dismissal at the president’s whim. Striking down such safeguards could permit future executives to reshape agency leadership based solely on policy differences.
Long-Standing Precedent Under Threat
In their arguments, the Trump administration directly called into question established legal principles, notably the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision. This landmark ruling affirmed congressional authority to place limits on presidential removals to protect agency independence. Solicitor General D. John Sauer labeled the 1935 decision “an indefensible outlier,” arguing it threatens democracy by granting Congress the power to create unaccountable bureaucracies.
Chief Justice John Roberts shared skepticism, dismissing the relevance of Humphrey’s Executor to modern agency operations. Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised concerns about Congress potentially bypassing presidential oversight if agencies remain insulated from removal. He warned that allowing Congress to create independent boards could hinder future presidents from carrying out their policy agendas.
Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed this sentiment, advocating for a reevaluation of the Court’s tolerance regarding Congress delegating authority to “unaccountable independent agencies.” His remarks indicate a broader desire to reconsider regulatory frameworks that may hinder executive action.
Opposing Voices Raise Alarms
Despite the strong conservative stance, liberal justices expressed concern over these arguments. Justice Sonia Sotomayor cautioned that overturning the statute could jeopardize essential institutions such as the Tax Court, while Justice Elena Kagan warned of handing unchecked power to the president. Kagan emphasized the risks associated with dismantling the checks and balances intended to provide government accountability and cautioned against a slippery slope of executive authority.
Amit Agarwal, representing Slaughter, added that permitting presidents to ignore established rules undermines congressional oversight. He cautioned the Court that such a shift could have significant ramifications for the integrity of the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The Impact of a Ruling
The stakes remain high; a ruling favoring Trump could allow presidential removal of members from crucial regulatory bodies, including the Federal Reserve. This prospect raises key questions about how such changes would shape economic policy and oversight. Kavanaugh acknowledged the difficulty in distinguishing the Federal Reserve’s protections from those at the FTC. Sauer’s defense of the Federal Reserve as a unique entity failed to satisfy concerns regarding the potential for broader implications if the Court sides with Trump.
Since its inception, the FTC has operated as an independent body created to oversee consumer protection and curb unfair business practices. Critics warn that eroding this independence could shift agency priorities based on the prevailing political agenda, undermining objective regulatory oversight.
Slaughter stressed the importance of independence for these agencies, underscoring that it allows decisions to be made based on merit. “Independence allows the decision-making to be on the merits, about protecting the interests of the American people,” she stated, reinforcing the argument for maintaining a balanced approach to governance.
Vision for Governance: Restructuring or Restoration?
Proponents of the Trump administration’s stance argue that such independence has resulted in agencies drifting away from accountability to the public. Former Trump administration lawyer James Burnham asserted that the notion of independent agencies is untenable within the constraints of the Constitution, describing the removal protections as fundamentally unconstitutional.
Advocates of the “unitary executive theory” maintain that the president should wield full control over the executive branch, echoing sentiments reinforced by recent rulings, including Trump v. United States. This evolving perspective on executive authority suggests that the Court’s direction is increasingly leaning towards legitimizing expansive presidential power.
Looking Ahead: Impending Decision
The justices are expected to announce their decision in Trump v. Slaughter by the end of June. A ruling in favor of Trump could mark a pivotal moment, effectively overturning or weakening the foundations laid by Humphrey’s Executor. Such a move would remove structural boundaries on presidential authority over multi-member independent agencies and could reshape the landscape of federal governance.
The consequences of this case extend beyond individual employment disputes; the ruling may redefine how the federal government operates. Should the Court decide to expand presidential control, it could shift the dynamic from agencies with bipartisan boards to a more centralized structure where executive preferences guide regulatory practices.
This ruling could have a lasting effect on the separation of powers and the future of federal oversight. As the case gains traction in public discourse, it illuminates critical debates about governmental accountability and the scope of executive power in the United States.
"*" indicates required fields
