The Supreme Court indicated on Monday a potential shift in the governance of independent federal agencies, suggesting that the president may gain the authority to dismiss members of multi-member commissions. This development arises from the case of **Trump v. Slaughter**, which questions whether President **Donald Trump** can remove **Rebecca Slaughter**, a commissioner of the **Federal Trade Commission (FTC)**. This case challenges a longstanding precedent established in **Humphrey’s Executor v. United States**, which has historically limited the president’s ability to remove officials from such commissions without cause.
During oral arguments, the conservative justices expressed skepticism about maintaining the precedent established nearly 90 years ago. **Chief Justice John Roberts** described the precedent as a “dried husk,” suggesting that the current function of the FTC is significantly different from when it was created in **1935**. This rhetoric indicates a willingness among the justices to reconsider the limitations on presidential authority over independent agencies.
The implications of this case extend beyond the FTC. The court’s history of permitting the Trump administration to remove officials from various agencies, including the **National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)** and the **Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)**, suggests a trend towards reducing the insulation of independent agencies from executive control. Court observers view these actions as a precursor to potentially overturning **Humphrey’s Executor** entirely.
Judicial Perspectives on Agency Independence
Justice **Elena Kagan** raised concerns about the consequences of reversing this precedent, highlighting that Congress has historically delegated significant legislative and judicial powers to these agencies. She cautioned that removing this separation could lead to a president exerting control over all facets of governance. Justice **Neil Gorsuch** echoed this sentiment, criticizing the Supreme Court for allowing Congress to delegate too much authority to the executive branch, which could result in significant power shifts within the government.
The justices explored the potential ramifications of their decision. **Justice Brett Kavanaugh** questioned whether this could lead Congress to reconfigure existing federal departments into multi-member commissions, effectively bypassing presidential authority. This prospect raised alarms about the growing power of agencies to dictate policy without direct presidential oversight.
**Amit Agarwal**, representing Slaughter, argued that many agencies currently wield considerable authority that should not be easily transferred or restructured. Justice **Amy Coney Barrett** pointed out the unpredictability of future congressional actions, emphasizing that today’s decision could have unforeseen effects decades down the line.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this critical case, its outcome could reshape the landscape of federal bureaucracy, shifting the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies. The stakes are high, as the court’s ruling may redefine the extent of presidential control over federal commissions and their ability to operate independently from political influence. The court is expected to issue its ruling in the coming months, which will have lasting implications for the future of federal governance in the United States.
