Supreme Court Considers Dismantling 90-Year Precedent Protecting Agency Independence

Key Quotes

"The Supreme Court is considering whether President Trump has broad authority to fire independent agency heads without cause andrea you've been following this case it was brought by a woman named rebecca slaughter who is rebecca slaughter and what is she arguing yeah so she was a commissioner on the federal trade commission and actually she was president trump's pick to fill a democratic seat back in 2018 and then she was renominated by former president biden and she was supposed to serve until 2029 but then president trump fired her in the middle of march this year he told her her continued service would be inconsistent with his priorities and she sued saying that was illegal she pointed out that when congress created the ftc um it said that commissioners could only be fired for cause for things like neglect of duty and malfeasance and the administration isn't saying that there was some neglect of duty in this case that's right the president didn't give her any such reason"

Andrea Hsu explains that Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commission commissioner, sued after being fired by President Trump without cause. Hsu highlights that Congress intended for commissioners to be removed only for specific reasons like neglect of duty or malfeasance, which the administration did not cite. This quote sets up the central legal challenge regarding the president's authority to dismiss officials from independent agencies.

"The administration's argument is that Congress never should have put restrictions on the President's power to remove officials like Rebecca Slaughter. That all executive power rests with the President, that's what the founders wanted, they say, and that's how they read the Constitution. And here's how they explain it: they say, you know, the people elected the President, but he is just one person, so he can't do everything himself. So he delegates his executive power to others who help him with his duties, and if they refuse to help him carry out his vision, then he must be able to remove them because otherwise, how can he accomplish the things that he promised to the people? You know, the buck stops with him. That's the administration's argument."

Mara Liasson outlines the Trump administration's defense, which centers on the unitary executive theory. The administration argues that the President, as the sole elected executive, must have the power to remove appointees who do not align with his vision to effectively carry out his mandate. Liasson emphasizes that this argument posits that all executive power is vested in the President and that restrictions on removal hinder his ability to be accountable.

"You know, what's so interesting about this case is this is about something very big and it's something that predates Donald Trump. And for a very long time, conservatives, especially a lot of them who are on the Supreme Court today, believe in something called the unitary executive theory, that the President should have powers at the expense of Congress, uh, to control everything in the executive branch. And we really are undergoing a change in our system of government before our very eyes that is making the executive branch more powerful at the expense of Congress."

Mara Liasson contextualizes the case as a significant issue predating the Trump administration, rooted in the conservative adherence to the unitary executive theory. Liasson explains that this theory posits that the President should possess broad control over the executive branch, even if it means diminishing Congress's power. She suggests that the current legal challenge represents a fundamental shift in the balance of power within the U.S. government.

"The administration as Mara says argues for a far more powerful executive branch with all of the power vested in the President and him alone and they argued that Congress is encroaching on that power with these independent agencies several of the conservative justices seemed really worried about this power that Congress has now several of the justices asked questions about this including Justice Kavanaugh."

Andrea Hsu describes the differing interpretations of the founders' intent presented to the Supreme Court. Hsu notes that the administration advocated for a powerful executive, while arguing that Congress's creation of independent agencies infringes upon presidential authority. Hsu points out that several conservative justices appeared concerned about Congress's current power in this area, as evidenced by their questioning.

"In that case from 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Congress could limit the President's power to remove officers of the Federal Trade Commission. That this is a precedent that the Trump administration has now asked the court to overturn. And, you know, already in recent years, the court has chipped away at that 1935 decision saying, for example, it doesn't apply to independent agencies that only have one person at the head, um, rather than a board or a commission."

Mara Liasson discusses the precedent set by the 1935 Humphrey's Executor Supreme Court decision. Liasson explains that this unanimous ruling affirmed Congress's ability to restrict the President's removal power for FTC officers. She notes that the Trump administration is seeking to overturn this long-standing precedent, and that the Court has previously narrowed its scope.

"It means that the executive branch power becomes more personalized. In other words, this is about the President and what he wants on a given day. If his powers are expanded and the checks and balances of independent agency heads are taken away, it means that he can govern on a whim."

Mara Liasson explains the potential consequences of expanding presidential power over independent agencies. Liasson argues that such an expansion would lead to a more personalized executive branch, where decisions are driven by the President's immediate desires rather than established processes. She suggests that removing these checks and balances would allow the President to govern arbitrarily.