The United States Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to hand President Donald Trump a significant increase in executive power after conservative justices signaled they would uphold the dismissal of a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
President Trump fired Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter in March, four years before the end of her term and contrary to a 90-year-old legal precedent that provides tenure protections to the heads of independent agencies.
A lower court initially ruled that Trump had exceeded his presidential authority by dismissing Slaughter, but during a two-hour appeals hearing, the Justice Department argued that tenure protections unlawfully encroach on presidential power.
And on Monday it appeared that the argument had earned sympathy from the conservative justices, who hold a 6-3 Supreme Court majority and who have called for the precedent in question — known as “Humphrey’s Executors v. United States” — to be overturned.
Conservatives argue that precedent is outdated
“Humphrey’s execution should be dismissed,” said U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sawyer, arguing on behalf of the Trump administration. He argued that the 1935 precedent “has not stood the test of time.”
Conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts seemed to agree, suggesting that the decision rejecting President Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to fire an FTC member over policy differences was a relic of the past, applying to an FTC that was much less powerful in the 1930s than it is today.
Roberts said, “The Humphreys Executioner is just a husk of what people thought it would be.” “It was addressing an agency that had very little, if any, executive power and that’s probably why they were able to attract such broad support in the court at that time.”
Solicitor Sawyer said the existence of the precedent “continues to inspire Congress to erect a leaderless fourth branch at the center of our government, isolated from political accountability and democratic control.”
Liberals warn of increase in presidential power
However, liberal justices warned that overturning precedent and upholding Slaughter’s dismissal would signal a massive increase in presidential power for Trump.
Justice Elena Kagan argued, “The outcome you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, unchecked power — not only to carry out traditional executions, but also to make laws through the legislative and judicial framework.”
“What you’re left with is a president … who has control over everything, including most of the lawmaking that happens in this country.”
His liberal colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor said independent agencies like the FTC have existed throughout American history, and for good reason.
“At the time of the founding of England there was neither a King, nor a Parliament, nor a Prime Minister [of the United States] Sotomayor argued, “there was never an unqualified removal power.”
“You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and take away Congress’s ability to protect its idea that government is better structured with a few independent agencies.”
‘Realities of the real world’
Noting Trump’s recent testing of the constitutional limits of presidential powers in areas including immigration, tariffs and domestic military deployments, Kagan asked the court not to ignore the “real world realities” of what his decisions could do.
“We are asking the court to follow all our precedents and give effect to the collective wisdom and experience of all three branches of government,” said Amit Agrava, a lawyer representing Slaughter.
On the contrary, he added, the administration is “asking you to leave precedent after precedent, precedent after precedent.”
Edited by: Jennifer Cimino Gonzalez