The Supreme Court appears ready to rule on whether President Trump has the authority to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) during oral arguments held on Monday. This case, known as Trump vs. Slaughter, has significant implications for the longstanding precedent surrounding the job security of independent agency commissioners.
A decision in favor of President Trump would mark a pivotal shift, undermining a 90-year-old legal framework that has traditionally protected independent agency commissioners from being dismissed for political reasons. The ruling could have far-reaching consequences for the future of independent agencies and their ability to function without political interference.
The controversy stems from President Trump’s recent decision to fire Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, both Democratic FTC commissioners. Central to this case is the legal precedent established by Humphrey's Executor, a ruling from 1935 that stipulates independent agency commissioners cannot be terminated without just cause.
During the oral arguments, the conservative majority on the Court exhibited reluctance to restrict the president's ability to dismiss agency commissioners. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized the difficulty of restoring presidential powers once they are curtailed, stating, "Once the power is taken away from the president, it's very hard to get it back in the legislative process." Meanwhile, Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to challenge the notion that protections for independent agency commissioners have historical roots dating back to the nation’s founding.
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the FTC wields significantly more power today than it did in 1935, suggesting that the original precedent may no longer hold the same relevance. The U.S. Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued that the Humphrey's Executor ruling imposes unconstitutional limitations on presidential powers, characterizing some agencies as "headless" and likening them to "junior varsity legislatures."
Liberal justices raised alarms about the potential consequences of overturning established precedent. They questioned why the court would seek to dismantle a historical framework that has long been in place, arguing that it implies a lack of trust in Congress to appropriately delegate power to agencies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed her concerns directly to Sauer, stating, "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government." Justice Elena Kagan echoed these sentiments, warning of the slippery slope that could follow if presidents are granted excessive powers in this context.
As the justices deliberate this significant case, they will also have to consider upcoming arguments regarding President Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Governor. The outcome of these proceedings may redefine the scope of presidential authority, particularly concerning independent agencies and the nation's central bank.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision in Trump vs. Slaughter could reshape the landscape of independent federal agencies and the degree of political influence that the presidency can exert over them.