The Supreme Court is preparing to potentially expand President Trump’s authority to dismiss officials from independent agencies. This comes as the justices assess whether Trump can terminate Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The case reflects a broader conflict between Congressional authority and presidential executive power.
Key Arguments in Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices seem inclined to favor granting President Trump greater control over independent agency officials. Trump’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued for the overturning of a key 1935 decision that affirmed the autonomy of these agencies. Sauer described the earlier ruling as “grievously wrong.” Meanwhile, justices from the liberal wing of the Court expressed concerns about the potential repercussions of such a ruling.
Concerns About Presidential Power
- Justice Elena Kagan warned of an “unchecked” power shift to the presidency.
- Liberal justices labeled the proposed changes as a “radical shift” in governance.
The Court’s conservatives, however, countered that independent agencies have been exercising powers that should be reserved for the president. It remains uncertain whether the Court will rule broadly on all independent agencies or focus specifically on the FTC.
Historical Context of Independent Agencies
For much of American history, Congress established independent boards and commissions. These agencies were tasked with specific missions and generally led by bipartisan experts appointed for fixed terms. Examples include:
- The Interstate Commerce Commission (1887), created to regulate railroad rates.
- The FTC (1914), formed to investigate corporate monopolies.
- The Federal Reserve Board (1913), established to oversee banking and monetary policies.
- The Securities and Exchange Commission (1934), designed to regulate the stock market during the Great Depression.
- The National Transportation Safety Board, focusing on aviation safety.
In these structures, Congress often limited the removal of appointees to cases of inefficiency or misconduct.
Implications of the Court’s Potential Ruling
Should the Court rule in favor of President Trump, it may signal a significant alteration in the structure of the federal government, favoring partisan control over bipartisan expertise. Past legal precedents have upheld the framework of independent agencies. Still, current conservative viewpoints challenge this tradition, suggesting that the president’s removal power prevails over Congressional limits.
The case including Trump vs. Slaughter is set to determine if longstanding protections for independent officials will be upheld or dismantled, which could lead to unprecedented changes in how these agencies operate.
Future Considerations
The business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, is particularly attentive to discussions regarding the Federal Reserve’s independence. Trump’s legal team acknowledged that if any exceptions to removal powers exist, they should only apply to the Federal Reserve.
The Court’s decision on this landmark case could reshape the governance landscape in the United States significantly.
