Supreme Court to Reassess Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies: A Landmark Case
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to revisit a pivotal legal precedent that could significantly alter the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies. The case, which centers on the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, raises questions about the extent of executive authority in dismissing agency officials. This reexamination could have profound implications for the structure of the federal government and the independence of regulatory bodies.
Historical Context of Humphrey’s Executor
The original Humphrey’s Executor case arose during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Supreme Court ruled that the president could not dismiss a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner without cause, establishing a precedent that insulated certain independent agencies from direct presidential control. This decision was rooted in the belief that these agencies serve a public interest that transcends partisan politics, allowing them to operate without undue influence from the executive branch.
Legal experts, including Hans von Spakovsky from the conservative Heritage Foundation, argue that this precedent is now “on life support.” Von Spakovsky contends that the Constitution designates the president as the head of the executive branch, akin to a CEO overseeing a corporation. He asserts that Congress should not be able to limit the president’s authority to supervise and manage executive functions, including law enforcement activities.
The Current Case: Implications for Executive Power
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit Humphrey’s Executor comes in the wake of a challenge involving Rebecca Slaughter, a Biden-appointed FTC commissioner who was dismissed by former President Donald Trump. The Court’s 6-3 emergency ruling allowed Trump’s termination of Slaughter to stand while it considers the broader implications of the case. Slaughter has argued that her firing was illegal, citing both Humphrey’s Executor and the FTC Act, which stipulates that commissioners can only be removed for cause, such as malfeasance or negligence.
Joshua Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, suggests that if the Court narrows or overturns Humphrey’s, the ruling could extend to other independent agencies that enjoy similar statutory protections. “The only question is whether they maintain that the Federal Reserve is different,” Blackman noted, highlighting the unique status of the Fed as a quasi-private institution.
The Broader Impact on Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions indicate a trend toward expanding presidential authority over independent agencies. Earlier this year, the Court hinted at its views on labor board firings, suggesting that it may view the Federal Reserve as a unique entity. This perspective could influence how the Court approaches the current case involving the FTC.
Von Spakovsky points to previous rulings, such as the 2010 decision that limited the independence of an accounting oversight board and the 2017 ruling that allowed the president to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) at will. In the latter case, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the president’s power to remove officials is rooted in Article II of the Constitution, which grants the executive branch significant authority.
The Unitary Executive Theory
A ruling in favor of Trump could bolster the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president should have sole control over the executive branch. This theory has gained traction among conservative legal scholars and politicians, who argue that a strong executive is essential for effective governance. Critics, however, warn that such a concentration of power could undermine the checks and balances that are foundational to American democracy.
Boston University law professor Jed Shugerman has remarked that Trump has done “more to establish a unitary executive than all the judges and legal scholars in the world could ever do.” However, he also cautions that Trump’s actions have exposed the potential dangers of this theory, suggesting that they could be perceived as authoritarian.
The Evolving Role of the FTC
The FTC’s role has evolved significantly since the Humphrey’s Executor decision. Today, the agency possesses a range of powers, including the ability to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and impose financial penalties. John Shu, a constitutional law expert, argues that the FTC of 1935 is vastly different from its modern counterpart, which now wields considerable executive, quasi-legislative, and quasi-judicial authority.
Shu believes that the Supreme Court is likely to narrow the scope of Humphrey’s Executor, given the expanded powers of the FTC and similar agencies. This shift could redefine the relationship between the presidency and independent regulatory bodies, potentially allowing for greater executive oversight.
Conclusion: A Pivotal Moment for Executive Authority
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments regarding the future of Humphrey’s Executor, the stakes are high. The outcome could reshape the landscape of executive power in the United States, impacting not only the FTC but also a host of other independent agencies. Legal scholars, policymakers, and the public alike will be watching closely, as this case could set a precedent that redefines the balance of power within the federal government for years to come.
