Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling on Monday, siding with President Trump in a case that challenges the authority of independent regulatory agencies. The court decided that Congress cannot shield the leaders of these agencies from being removed by the president, effectively overturning a notable precedent from 1935 that has supported modern regulatory practices for nearly one hundred years.
The ruling, which passed with a 6-3 vote in Trump vs. Slaughter, stemmed from the president’s decision to dismiss two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, early in his second term. Trump pointed to his constitutional powers under Article II instead of justifying the firings based on the FTC’s guidelines, which specify removal conditions like “inefficiency, dereliction of duty, or misconduct in office.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, representing the majority opinion, asserted that the FTC’s removal protections conflict with the Constitution, which allocates executive power to a single president. The court determined that individuals wielding executive authority must remain accountable to the president, necessitating the ability to remove them without restrictions.
This decision overturned the earlier ruling from Humphries Executor vs. United States, which carved out an exception for certain agencies performing quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles. The court criticized this classification, arguing it has become increasingly unreasonable as the FTC’s jurisdiction has expanded into nearly all areas of the economy.
The implications of this ruling extend well beyond the FTC, potentially enabling the president to remove leaders of various independent agencies, including the SEC, CFTC, and NLRB, at any time.
Interestingly, the court highlighted the Federal Reserve System as potentially fitting into a distinct constitutional category, rooted in its historical significance linked to the early U.S. banking system. Additionally, in a related ruling on the same day, the court dismissed Trump’s attempt to restrict Fed Director Lisa Cook from staying in her position while her removal is legally contested. The court noted that Trump hadn’t provided Cook with appropriate notice or a chance to respond to the claims made against her. The 5-4 majority found that the “cause” protection for Fed directors aligns with constitutional principles and reflects the historical independence of the nation’s central bank.
Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented from the majority opinion.
