Supreme Court to Reconsider Congressional Independence Precedent
The Supreme Court is set to weigh a significant case concerning a nearly century-old precedent that permits Congress to grant certain independent institutions a degree of autonomy from presidential influence. This decision arises amidst former President Trump’s assertion that he should have the authority to dismiss leaders of such independent bodies at his discretion.
Oral arguments are scheduled for December, with a ruling anticipated by the following summer.
In the meantime, the court’s order will allow for the opposition from its three liberal justices to continue regarding the dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Notably, the majority did not elaborate on their rationale, but Justice Elena Kagan expressed her dissent, criticizing her colleagues for their emergency intervention stance.
“We should not use our emergency dockets to bypass precedent,” Kagan stated, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Kagan further commented that the court’s actions should not serve to shift powers from Congress to the presidency or to alter the balance of power within the government.
This case brings into question the precedent set by the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States*, which upheld the constitutional protection against removing FTC leaders. Since then, this decision has been fundamental in justifying the independence of various institutions.
In recent years, the court’s conservative majority has moved to restrict the scope of this precedent, raising concerns about its future.
Such skepticism intensified during Trump’s second term as he aimed to eliminate protections against dismissals, claiming authority to hire and fire officials at will within the enforcement agencies.
The court had previously allowed similar actions taken by Trump’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), granting temporary permissions regarding dismissals of key members.
However, the justices subsequently returned these cases to lower courts, resisting the administration’s push to address broader legal issues until the FTC matter arose in their latest appeal.
Attorney General D. John Saur emphasized in a court filing that the court’s decision on this case could influence many others, providing vital guidance in future matters.
A Democrat appointed to the FTC in 2018 was involved in litigation after Trump attempted to terminate her in March. Federal law mandates that the president may only remove the FTC’s commissioner for inefficiency, dereliction of duty, or misconduct.
With no valid cause presented, the Trump administration argues that these protections impede presidential authority and contend that courts lack the ability to reinstate FTC commissioners.
The case escalated to the Supreme Court after an uninhibited lower court order reinstated Slaughter’s position following a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Chief Justice John Roberts allowed this dismissal attempt to proceed while the court deliberates on the appropriate course of action.
Attorneys for Slaughter defend the lower courts’ decisions against the emergency intervention urged by the administration, though they conceded to the administration’s pressing request for the Supreme Court to address the case without delay.
“It’s crucial to swiftly clarify the constitutionality of these traditional independent entities,” the attorney underscored in court filings.
The situation has also garnered attention from individuals previously dismissed by the NLRB and the MSPB, prompting them to file a conditional petition urging the court to take action should they choose to proceed. Instead, the court opted to focus solely on Slaughter’s case.
3:47pm
