Supreme Court Considers Vastly Expanding The President’s Powers

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court is reviewing presidential power to fire independent agency heads without cause.
The case challenges a nearly 100-year-old precedent protecting agency independence.
The Trump administration advocates for a unitary executive theory, asserting full presidential control.
Critics warn of a return to a patronage system and politicized government services.
The Court's decision could profoundly impact the administrative state and future presidencies.

The Supreme Court is reviewing a nearly 100-year-old precedent regarding presidential authority to fire heads of independent agencies without cause.
Former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, appointed by Trump and re-nominated by Biden, sued after being fired without cause.
Slaughter's lawsuit cites the Federal Trade Commission's founding legislation, which permits removal of its commissioners only "for cause."
The Trump administration argues Congress cannot restrict the president's power to remove executive officials, aligning with the unitary executive theory.
start": "01:00", "teaser": "A Supreme Court case challenges the president's power to fire independent agency heads.

Independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission protect consumers and oversee investigations, while the Consumer Product Safety Commission handles product recalls.
Critics express concern that unlimited presidential removal power could lead to a patronage system, where government jobs are awarded based on political loyalty.
This shift could impact critical services like air traffic control and food safety inspections.
Mara Liasson noted the Trump administration's unique efforts to dismantle the administrative state by attempting to fire agency heads without cause.

Supreme Court arguments questioned Congress's ability to create independent agencies removable only for cause, referencing the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent.
Justice Kavanaugh asked if Congress could convert all executive departments into multi-member commissions with limited removal.
An attorney for a fired FTC commissioner argued for the historical tradition of independent agencies free from presidential control.
Justice Sotomayor expressed alarm at the administration's request to overturn the 1935 precedent.
Previous court decisions have created carve-outs for agencies like the Federal Reserve, sparking concerns about presidential influence over economic policy.

The case has broader implications beyond the Federal Trade Commission, including other Trump administration firings at agencies such as the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Other agencies impacted include the Federal Election Commission, where leaders were also fired.
These firings raise questions about whether agency decisions are influenced by politics rather than public interest.
Expanded presidential removal power could undermine the appeal process for federal workers.

Expanded presidential power to fire agency leaders without cause suggests a shift towards a more personalized executive branch.
Decisions could be driven by a president's daily preferences rather than established policy.
This could lead to arbitrary governance and a return to patronage systems, susceptible to corruption.
These potential changes have major implications for all future presidencies.