Supreme Court Allows Trump to Dismiss Democrat-Appointed Agency Members
The Supreme Court has put a temporary green light on President Donald Trump’s ability to dismiss several members appointed by Democrats to independent agencies. However, there’s still one significant case making its way through the courts that could fundamentally affect the president’s authority in this area.
In the case of Slaughter v. Trump, members of the Federal Trade Commission appointed by Biden are challenging what they describe as “unlawful dismissals,” setting the stage for a possibility that the issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
This case poses critical questions regarding the implications of the longstanding ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a case from nearly a century ago that addressed presidential power over independent regulatory bodies.
John Shu, a constitutional law expert from previous Bush administrations, has suggested that if this case reaches the High Court, it may align with the president’s perspective.
Trump Can Proceed with Dismissals
Recently, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to move forward with reasons to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission appointed by Democrats. This decision seems to indicate a willingness by the Court to diminish the independence of the FTC while holding Trump accountable.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court referred to the “significant enforcement power” possessed by the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, asserting that the president has the authority to exclude executive officials who wield that power on his behalf.
“I’m not confident that the existing interpretation of Humphrey’s Executor will remain intact after the Supreme Court weighs in,” Shu mentioned.
Understanding Humphrey’s Executor
Humphrey’s Executor revolved around President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s dismissal of an FTC commissioner, marking the first instance where the Supreme Court limited presidential removal powers by deciding that Roosevelt exceeded his authority. Under the FTC Act, a president can’t dismiss a commissioner without just cause, such as fraud, before the completion of their term.
Over the decades, the functions of the FTC have evolved to focus on combating anti-competitive practices, which has greatly expanded since the original ruling.
Shu pointed out that today’s FTC differs significantly from the agency established in 1935; it now has the capacity to initiate investigations, issue subpoenas, file lawsuits, and impose penalties, exercising both regulatory and quasi-judicial roles.
Future Implications
Using the recent ruling as an indicator, the Supreme Court appears inclined to challenge the independence of the FTC, potentially reshaping the landscape for upcoming legal battles.
The recent order did not directly reference Humphrey’s Executor, but it signals a readiness of the Supreme Court to reconsider its 90-year-old precedent.
Current Status of Slaughter’s Case
Slaughter initially scored a win when a federal judge ruled that Trump acted unconstitutionally by firing her, allowing her to briefly return to the FTC. However, the Trump administration quickly appealed, leading to an appellate court suspension of the lower court’s ruling.
Judge Lauren Alican stated that Slaughter’s case mirrors that of William Humphrey, reinforcing the ongoing legal fight.
The situation derives from Trump’s firing of two Democrat-appointed members from the FTC, a move that many believe contradicts Humphrey’s Executor principles. While one member has resigned, Slaughter has continued to contest the legality of her dismissal.
“For almost a century, agencies like the FTC have been shielded from political influence. I’ll keep fighting against these unlawful terminations,” Slaughter asserted in her statement.
A panel of judges, currently made up of two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee, is expected to deliberate on this matter, with a deadline for further filings set for July 29th.
