Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has asserted that the President of the United States should not have the authority to dismiss government experts like scientists and economists, suggesting that such power is “not in the best interests” of the American public.
During oral arguments for Trump vs. Slaughter, Jackson engaged with U.S. Attorney General D. John Sauer, expressing confusion over why “a government agency doesn’t answer to Congress.” She emphasized that “Congress has enacted them and can eliminate them.”
This discussion follows a September decision by the Supreme Court allowing President Donald Trump to remove former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
“I really don’t understand why a government agency wouldn’t answer to Congress,” Jackson reiterated. “Congress can create them and get rid of them. Congress funds them and can stop them. So the notion that there’s an entity operating independently is something I don’t grasp.”
In response to Jackson’s acknowledgment, Sauer argued, “You could say that Congress, the constitutional entity, controls these government agencies. It’s a huge separation of powers.”
Jackson further noted that Sauer’s position “seems to revolve around” the premise that “independent agencies require presidential oversight because they don’t report to anyone.”
Jackson continued:
I perceive the dangers and implications of your stance quite differently than what was discussed with Judge Kavanaugh. From my perspective, independent agencies exist because Congress determined that certain issues need to be managed by bipartisan experts. Congress has indicated that such expertise is crucial regarding the economy, transportation, and other facets handled by these independent bodies. Therefore, it’s not truly beneficial for the American people if a president can dismiss all the qualified scientists, doctors, and economists and replace them with loyalists who lack the necessary knowledge. These matters shouldn’t fall under presidential authority. Could you elaborate on the risks of granting the president control over the Transportation Board or even the Federal Reserve? We want to preserve independence in these areas; we don’t want direct presidential influence. I find it hard to understand why Congress’s choice to maintain this structure—given its duty to safeguard the American populace—is shrouded in concerns that the president must oversee everything.
According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court has indicated that it may “override a federal law that limits the president’s ability to fire FTC commissioners.”
