In a highly charged session before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch challenged the legal arguments presented by Amit Agarwal, representing fired Democrat FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. The case, Trump v. Slaughter, delves into the extent of presidential authority over unelected bureaucrats. Gorsuch didn’t hold back, critically assessing the Left’s rationale surrounding independent agencies designed to evade accountability to elected officials.
The heart of the matter involves the Left’s insistence on maintaining what they call a fourth branch of government. This framework allows these independent agencies to operate beyond the control of the president, effectively subverting the will of voters and congressional intent. Gorsuch’s direct approach highlighted the flaws in this theory. He remarked, “Maybe it’s a recognition that Humphrey’s Executor was poorly reasoned and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” His commitment to exposing weak legal foundations reflects a broader effort to reaffirm the authority vested in the presidency.
During questioning, Gorsuch emphasized that the president possesses all executive power and a duty to enforce laws. He pressed Agarwal on the President’s obligations, effectively dismantling Agarwal’s nuanced explanations. At one point, Gorsuch pointedly asked, “Does he have a duty to faithfully execute all the laws?” Agarwal’s hesitation became apparent: “Well—” and “I would say no.” This exchange underscored the tension in their dialogue and Gorsuch’s commitment to clarity in the law.
In a particularly striking moment, Gorsuch challenged the implications of Agarwal’s assertions about the president’s scope of authority. If the president can supervise only some laws, what does that mean for federal governance? Gorsuch pressed, “That would be news to our friends across the street,” signaling his skepticism toward Agarwal’s claims that seemed to dilute presidential power.
Gorsuch’s relentless inquiries revealed a concern about the potential for a legal framework that permits an unaccountable bureaucracy. By deconstructing Agarwal’s arguments, Gorsuch painted a broader picture of a legal system in need of reevaluation. He suggested that adopting the idea of a fourth branch leads to legal absurdity and opens the door to further litigious complications. As he noted, “If we take your theory and go down this road, how are we supposed to decide which powers are exclusive?”
Agarwal attempted to bolster his claims by invoking landmark cases like Marbury v. Madison, focusing on the distinction between presidential powers and authority. Gorsuch dismissed this tactic as insufficient, pointing out the flaws inherited from past decisions like Humphrey’s Executor. His approach reinforced the notion that just because a precedent exists does not mean it is immune from scrutiny, especially when public accountability is at stake.
The exchanges laid bare the legal complexities at play while shining a light on the overarching struggle for power within the U.S. government. Gorsuch took a firm stance against the entrenched bureaucratic system, suggesting that it’s time to reassess the legitimacy of independent agencies that shield themselves from presidential oversight. His assertion that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government encapsulates a significant legal and constitutional debate that has potential ramifications for governance.
Justice Gorsuch’s pointed questions and insights suggest a pivot toward reining in the influence of these independent entities. His willingness to challenge established precedents speaks to a larger effort to restore clarity and accountability in the balance of powers. The dialogue between Gorsuch and Agarwal exemplifies the critical examination of the laws that shape the nation’s governance and the imperative to secure a constitutional order that aligns with democratic principles.
"*" indicates required fields
