The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review the potential expansion of presidential authority over independent agencies, marking its intention to reconsider a longstanding decision from 1935. This decision, known as Humphrey’s Executor, currently restricts presidents from removing commissioners of certain federal agencies without cause. The case has resurfaced following a recent 6-3 Supreme Court decision permitting President Donald Trump to dismiss Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while legal proceedings are ongoing.
The court’s conservative majority appears inclined toward revising the aforementioned decision, which historically has protected agency board members from being discharged without justification. Justice Elena Kagan, supported by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed opposition to the decision that facilitates Slaughter’s dismissal, stating that Congress had explicitly restricted such presidential actions. Despite this dissent, the court provided no detailed rationale for its current decision, typical of emergency docket cases.
The upcoming arguments in December will determine whether to reverse the 1935 judgment that supports the idea of commissioners being removed solely for misconduct or neglect of duty. This decision was initially established during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, aimed at buttressing New Deal implementations, and it paved the way for a series of powerful independent agencies tasked with a variety of regulatory responsibilities.
There is a division between the Justice Department and opponents of these potential changes. The Justice Department contends that Trump should possess the authority to fire board members to further his administrative goals, arguing that every instance of transferred executive power causes harm. Conversely, legal representatives for Slaughter caution that permitting unfettered presidential dismissal power could lead to decisions being influenced by political motives rather than expertise.
In an unusual move, the court is taking the case before it has gone through the lower courts. However, the request from two other board members, Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, for their cases to be included, has been declined. These cases, however, will continue in lower courts.
The FTC plays a pivotal role in enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws. Similarly, the National Labor Relations Board addresses labor disputes and oversees union voting, while the Merit Systems Protection Board manages federal workforce disputes.
The judicial allowance for presidential dismissal currently extends to multiple board members, although the court has hinted at potential limitations concerning the Federal Reserve, a matter anticipated to be tested in the case involving former Fed Governor Lisa Cook.