Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court is likely to grant the president broad power to remove heads of independent agencies by overruling a nearly 90-year-old precedent.
- The *Trump v. Slaughter* decision could significantly dismantle the administrative state and shift power to the executive branch.
- Campaign finance regulations, including coordination and contribution limits, faced judicial scrutiny regarding their constitutionality and effectiveness in preventing corruption.
- Recent court news highlighted discussions around judicial conduct, ethical standards, and significant administrative appointments.
Deep Dive
- The Supreme Court is predicted to rule 6-3 in *Trump v. Slaughter*, allowing the president to remove heads of independent agencies.
- This decision would overrule *Humphrey's Executor*, a nearly 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential removal power over independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission.
- The Court expedited *Trump v. Slaughter*, bypassing the typical appellate court process, suggesting an eagerness to overturn the precedent.
- Former President Trump had previously attempted to remove members of multi-member agencies, with the Court granting stays allowing their removal during ongoing litigation.
- Solicitor General John Sauer's defense of broad presidential power in *Trump v. Slaughter* was characterized as 'fan service' to conservative legal ideology.
- Justices extensively engaged with Antonin Scalia's past dissents, particularly his 'Fenris wolf' analogy from *Morrison v. Olson*.
- *Morrison v. Olson* established the independent counsel post-Watergate, a reform designed to ensure independence from the executive branch.
- Rebecca Slaughter's advocate, ImeI Agarwal, delivered a tepid defense, attempting to use the court's preferred history and tradition vernacular.
- The strategy of appointing a Republican advocate with conservative bona fides was questioned, with some suggesting it implies greater credibility.
- A comparison was made to the *Seila Law* case, where conservative Paul Clement was appointed as amicus to defend the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
- Justice Jackson challenged the argument that the vesting clause grants the president sole executive power, citing the necessary and proper clause for congressional authority.
- Justice Barrett questioned General Sauer regarding the constitutional basis for the unitary executive theory, noting a reluctance to specify precise legal foundations.
- The core argument states the vesting clause implies the president must be able to fire anyone exercising significant executive power, with broad implications beyond the FTC.
- The *Slaughter* ruling might not benefit both Republican and Democratic presidents equally, as the 'major questions doctrine' could block actions by Democratic agencies.
- Justice Gorsuch's comments suggested a desire to 'blow up the government' by reviving the non-delegation doctrine, which has been under-enforced since 1935.
- The decision's 'blast radius' could potentially affect agencies such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
- The case *National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission* focuses on anti-coordination provisions that limit parties from coordinating with candidates.
- Contribution limits restrict direct donations, with specific amounts cited such as $3,300 for individuals to candidates and over $40,000 to parties.
- Noel Francisco, representing the challengers, downplayed the possibility of quid pro quo corruption, even when presented with examples of major donors receiving lucrative government jobs.
- Amicus curiae Ramon Martinez argued the campaign finance case lacked a live controversy and prospect of enforcement.
- The petitioners were not active candidates, and the Trump administration had previously declared non-enforcement of the challenged provision.
- Martinez suggested the court should adhere to Article III jurisdictional requirements, noting precedent from a prior case that denied private enforcement claims.
- The court heard arguments in *Ham v. Smith*, a death penalty case concerning *Atkins* challenges for individuals with severe intellectual disabilities.
- The central issue in *Ham v. Smith* is how courts should weigh cumulative IQ scores, with the state reportedly seeking to foreclose claims if IQs are above 70.
- The court also heard oral arguments in *FS Credit Corp v. Saba Capital Masterfund*, regarding whether the Investment Company Act allows for a private right of action for lawsuits.
- The Supreme Court vacated a Second Circuit decision on New York's vaccination requirement for schools, remanding it in light of a prior ruling on parental rights.
- Third Circuit Judge Emil Bove attended a Trump rally where Donald Trump made racist remarks, raising questions about judicial ethics canons prohibiting political activity.
- Alina Haba resigned from her U.S. Attorney position after a Third Circuit ruling found her appointment unlawful.