The Supreme Court building with bare trees in the foreground The Supreme Court building with bare trees in the foreground
A majestic view of the United States Supreme Court building, showcasing its grand architecture and the inscription "Equal Justice Under Law" under a clear sky, with the bare branches of trees framing the scene. By MDL.

Supreme Court to Decide Trump’s Power Over Federal Agencies: What’s at Stake?

SCOTUS will hear Trump’s appeal on agency head removal. The case could overturn precedent, altering presidential power.

Executive Summary

  • The Supreme Court will hear an expedited appeal concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to remove members of independent federal agencies, potentially overturning a 1935 precedent limiting presidential power.
  • The Court temporarily allowed the removal of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, a decision that faced strong opposition from the three liberal justices.
  • Scheduled for arguments in December, the case is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.
  • The Story So Far

  • President Donald Trump has sought to alter a decades-old system that grants independent federal agencies a degree of autonomy, challenging his authority to remove their leadership. This action directly questions a 1935 precedent that allowed Congress to safeguard these bodies from direct White House discretion, with the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision poised to significantly reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and these agencies.
  • Why This Matters

  • The Supreme Court’s decision to hear President Trump’s appeal regarding his authority to remove independent agency members could overturn a nearly century-old precedent, significantly expanding presidential power over bodies like the Federal Trade Commission and potentially reshaping the nation’s separation of powers by reducing these agencies’ independence from direct political influence.
  • Who Thinks What?

  • President Donald Trump sought to alter a decades-old system to exert greater control over independent federal agencies by dismissing their leadership.
  • The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices, including Justice Kagan, dissented from the temporary removal of a Federal Trade Commission member, arguing that the 1935 precedent should still apply and that the court should not transfer government authority from Congress to the president.
  • The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear an expedited appeal concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to remove members of independent federal agencies, a move that could overturn a Roosevelt-era precedent limiting presidential power over such bodies. The high court will assess whether Trump acted lawfully in his efforts to exert greater control over agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by dismissing their leadership.

    Background to the Challenge

    Since retaking power in February, Trump has sought to alter a decades-old system that grants some government agencies a degree of independence, allowing them to operate without direct political interference. The core question before the court is whether it should revoke a 1935 precedent that permitted Congress to safeguard these independent agencies from the discretion of the White House.

    Interim Decision and Dissent

    In the interim, pending a final decision on the case, the court stated that Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who has served on the Federal Trade Commission since 2018, could be temporarily removed from her position. This temporary removal faced strong opposition from the court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – who dissented from the decision.

    Justice Kagan, in her dissent, suggested the majority “may be raring” to invalidate congressional requirements for cause-based removal. She argued that the 1935 precedent should still apply until formally overturned. Kagan criticized the use of the court’s emergency docket, stating it “should never be used…to permit what our own precedent bars,” and further, “it should not be used…to transfer government authority from Congress to the president, and thus to reshape the nation’s separation of powers.”

    Next Steps

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case in December. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.

    Add a comment

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    Secret Link