Supreme Court to Hear Trump v. Slaughter Case

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments today in the case of Trump v. Slaughter. This case will explore whether Congress can protect the heads of certain executive agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), from being removed by the president.

According to the American Advancement of Freedom, the constitutional answer should lean towards “no.” They argue that while it may seem right for the president to win this case, it’s crucial for the court to enhance Congress’s legislative powers. Over time, significant authority has shifted to an unelected administrative state, which has blurred the lines between the three branches of government. The Constitution designates Congress to create laws, the President to enforce them, and the courts to interpret them, acting as a check on potential abuses of power.

This case, Slaughter v. Trump, is really about giving some of that authority back to the president. Ninety years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Humphrey’s Executor that Congress could shield the leaders of multi-member agencies from presidential removal, which effectively limited the president’s control. This conflicts with the Constitution’s clear assignment of executive power solely to the President of the United States.

Article 2 of the Constitution plainly states, “Executive power is vested in the President of the United States.” It underscores that only one person holds authority over the executive branch.

Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this point in his 1988 dissent in Morrison v. Olson, emphasizing that the Constitution’s framers intentionally kept executive powers unified, rejecting proposals for multiple executives or independent advisory councils. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 70, also noted that a cohesive executive branch is essential for effective governance.

Now, the court has a chance to correct past mistakes in Trump v. Slaughter.

This debate arrives shortly after the Court’s recent ruling in Roper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where they overturned the Chevron doctrine, reclaiming their interpretation authority. While this decision curtailed some of the administrative state’s power, it still maintained certain authorities that rightfully belong to Congress. The court’s next logical step should be to return that power to Congress, where it constitutionally belongs.

Moreover, the court is already positioned to make insightful decisions on related issues. They’ve recently heard oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. VOS Selection, both questions surrounding the president’s exclusive powers regarding taxes and tariffs, which are actually reserved for Congress according to Article I, Section 8. A major topic in these cases is the nondelegation doctrine, which affirms that Congress cannot pass off its law-making authority to others.

Justice Gorsuch pointed out in his 2019 dissent in Gundy v. United States that the framers aimed to complicate the legislative process to safeguard citizens’ liberties from potential tyranny by the federal government. It’s intended that Congress primarily shapes the laws governing America.

Currently, the executive branch wields extensive legislative powers that stretch beyond what the Founders envisioned and contradict the intended separation of powers. From tariffs to environmental regulations, the president and their administration have considerable influence over everyday lives.

We’re optimistic that the Court will re-establish the President’s rightful control over the executive branch, while also encouraging a revitalization of the nondelegation doctrine to ensure Congress remains the one crafting the rules, particularly in customs litigation and other key areas.