The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will review a landmark 90-year-old precedent that has traditionally safeguarded independent agencies from direct presidential control.
With a conservative majority on the bench, the court has previously supported President Donald Trump in his attempts to remove Democratic appointees from important regulatory positions, specifically at the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
In a related order issued on the same day, the court upheld Trump’s decision to dismiss a Democratic appointee from the Federal Trade Commission.
These rulings suggest that the Supreme Court may lean towards affirming the president’s power to remove officials from independent agencies, contradicting the historical expectation that such officials, often appointed for fixed terms established by Congress, should be insulated from direct presidential influence.
A notable exception in this legal debate is the Federal Reserve Board, which the court indicated might retain its independence.
In a prior ruling in May concerning the firing of an NLRB official, the court clarified that its decision did not intend to undermine the Federal Reserve’s unique status, referring to it as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”
Despite this, President Trump has publicly expressed his desire to dismiss Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in response to dissatisfaction over interest rates.
More recently, Trump has made moves to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee, citing allegations of mortgage fraud related to loans she secured in 2021.
Last week, Trump’s legal team submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking immediate action regarding Cook’s removal.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has long advocated the view that the president possesses constitutional authority over federal agencies, including the ability to hire or fire officials who wield significant executive power.
This interpretation challenges a well-established understanding that has prevailed since 1887, when Congress first established independent commissions like the Interstate Commerce Commission to oversee regulatory matters such as railroad rates.
Historically, the president has been granted the authority to appoint officials to these agencies, whose terms are defined by law.
Moreover, it has often been mandated that these boards consist of a politically balanced mix of appointees from both major parties.
This framework was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1935 in the case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, where the justices supported the notion that such officials—with their function of making judicial-like decisions—should remain free from presidential control.
This decision, made in the context of President Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to dismiss a Republican Federal Trade Commission appointee, marked a significant setback for the executive branch’s authority over independent agencies.
In recent years, however, Chief Justice Roberts and his conservative colleagues have vocalized doubts about Congress’s power to insulate officials from presidential oversight.
In the court’s order on Monday, it announced plans to hear arguments in December regarding the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission.
The court will specifically evaluate whether these protections violate the separation of powers and whether the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor should consequently be overturned.
Justice Elena Kagan has consistently voiced dissent on these matters, contending that Congress retains the authority to legislate and structure the government independent of presidential influence.
Accompanied by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan criticized the court for enabling what she sees as a transfer of government authority from Congress to the presidency.
She stated, “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars.”
The coming months will be critical as the Supreme Court sets out to redefine the boundaries of presidential power over independent federal agencies.
image source from：latimes
