Supreme Court Poised to Expand Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices appear ready to significantly curtail Congress’s authority and grant President Trump expanded power to dismiss officials at independent federal agencies and commissions. Arguments heard Monday centered on whether the president can fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the five-member Federal Trade Commission (FTC), a case that highlights a fundamental clash between congressional authority to structure the government and the president’s asserted “executive power.”
A ruling in favor of Trump could trigger a historic shift in the federal government, moving away from non-partisan expertise and toward increased presidential control. The case challenges the longstanding structure of independent agencies, designed to operate free from direct political interference.
A Challenge to Decades of Precedent
Trump’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued forcefully that the court should overturn a 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies. He asserted the prior ruling “was grievously wrong when it was decided. It must be overruled,” signaling a desire to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the executive branch and these agencies.
The court’s three liberal justices strongly opposed this proposition, characterizing it as a “radical change” to American governance. They warned that granting the president unchecked authority to remove agency leaders could undermine the civil service and concentrate “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” according to Justice Elena Kagan.
However, the six conservative justices expressed concern that these agencies were exercising “executive power” rightfully reserved for the president. The justices did not immediately indicate whether their ruling would apply broadly to all independent agencies or be limited to the FTC and similar commissions.
The Rise of the ‘Administrative State’
For much of U.S. history, Congress has established independent boards and commissions to address specific national needs, staffed by experts appointed to fixed terms. These agencies, like the Interstate Commerce Commission created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates, were intended to provide specialized knowledge and consistent oversight. The FTC, established in 1914, was designed to investigate corporate monopolies, while the Federal Reserve Board (1913) was created to stabilize the banking system.
During the Great Depression, Congress further expanded this model, establishing the Securities and Exchange Commission (1934) to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board (1935) to resolve labor disputes. Later, agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission were created to address safety concerns, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established to oversee nuclear safety.
Typically, appointees to these bodies – a mix of Republicans and Democrats – were protected by fixed terms and could only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”
Conservatives have long criticized these agencies as an out-of-control “administrative state,” arguing they are insufficiently accountable to the president. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has stated his belief that independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional, asserting that “The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise— those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution.
Constitutional Clash and Legal Battles
The current dispute stems from a legal challenge to the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S. decision, which previously upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies. The conservative majority believes the president’s executive power supersedes Congress’s ability to limit that power through law. “Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote in a previous ruling, Trump vs. United States.
Following a series of firings of Democratic appointees with fixed terms after Trump’s reelection, several individuals, including Slaughter, filed suit. While they initially prevailed in lower courts, the Supreme Court sided with the president by a 6-3 vote, prompting the current case, Trump vs. Slaughter, to determine whether to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.
The Washington Legal Foundation applauded the court’s decision to hear the case, arguing that Humphrey’s Executor has allowed “unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight.”
The Federal Reserve Exception?
While the conservative justices appear inclined to expand presidential power, the fate of the Federal Reserve remains uncertain. Some, including the Chamber of Commerce, have suggested carving out an exception for the Federal Reserve, whose independence is considered crucial for maintaining economic stability. Trump’s lawyer indicated a willingness to consider an “agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.
Law professors defending the 1935 decision have pointed out that independent boards often possess legislative and judicial functions, in addition to executive duties. However, these arguments have not swayed Roberts and the conservative justices.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision promises to have far-reaching consequences for the structure and operation of the federal government, potentially ushering in an era of greater presidential control over independent agencies and reshaping the balance of power between the branches of government.
