The Supreme Court issued major decisions on June 29 that both expanded and limited the president’s ability to fire the heads of federal entities.
The decision not only allowed him to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but also overruled a nearly century-old precedent limiting the president’s ability to fire heads of agencies.
However, the Supreme Court also made clear that Trump’s power to fire wasn’t unlimited.
The decision was more tentative but indicated that the court viewed the Federal Reserve differently from agencies such as the FTC.
It also said that the Constitution required some kind of due process for removing officials such as Cook.
Historic Rulings
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter completed a years-long erosion of a critical precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.That case, which was decided in 1935, said that Congress could set limits on the president’s ability to fire the heads of agencies such as the FTC.
Like Trump, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to fire an FTC commissioner, casting doubt on a law Congress passed to limit the reasons for which presidents could do so.
Lower courts cited this decision to block Trump’s removal of not only FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, but also the heads of other independent agencies.
In recent years, the precedent has faced considerable criticism in opinions issued by the Supreme Court.
The court’s 6–3 decision left some room, however, for Congress to protect entities other than the FTC—particularly the Federal Reserve.
In Trump v. Cook, Roberts and four of his colleagues emphasized the importance of the Federal Reserve’s independence.
“Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design,” the court said.
Limited Effects for Other Agencies
Roberts attempted to limit the court’s ruling in Trump v. Slaughter to the FTC, but the majority’s reasoning will likely affect other agencies.Part of the ambiguity stemmed from the court’s decades-long wrestling with what constituted executive power.
In Humphrey’s Executor, the court said Congress could restrict FTC firings because the agency exercised “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” power.
Roberts said on June 29 that the FTC in its more current form “unquestionably” exercised significant executive power.
“In its present form, the FTC enforces and administers some 80 statutes covering almost every facet of the nation’s economy, and the tasks it undertakes are ‘the very essence of “execution” of the law,’” he said.
Because the FTC exercised so much executive power, Roberts said, Congress’s restrictions in the FTC Act violated the separation of powers.
The majority relied heavily on another precedent from 1926, known as Myers v. United States, which upheld the president’s ability to fire officials who exercised executive power.
However, Roberts refused to define the bounds of executive power on June 29 and indicated that other agencies could function in ways that allowed more restrictions by Congress.
Other agencies’ fates could be determined by future litigation, but the Supreme Court already indicated that it thought Trump’s power to remove other agency heads was substantial.
Concerns About Presidential Power
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, suggested in a dissent that the court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter would have far-reaching consequences.She acknowledged that the ruling didn’t eliminate independent agencies, but she argued they would be “transformed” in ways that could lead to oppression by the president.
The result of the court’s decision, she said, “is a president who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”
“In granting the president this unbridled authority, the court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty,” she wrote.
Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the court should use future decisions to go further than it did on June 29.
“The fact remains that Congress has endowed formerly independent agencies not just with executive authority, but with enormous legislative and judicial powers as well,” he wrote. “And now the President enjoys control over all those powers too.
Battle Not Over in Fed Case
As for the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court returned Cook’s case to a lower court for further litigation.Trump had purported to fire Cook based on his authority under the Federal Reserve Act, which states that presidents can remove Federal Reserve members “for cause.”
He cited allegations that she committed mortgage fraud, which she denied.
In his majority opinion, Roberts refused to define what a just “cause” would be for removing someone such as Cook. Instead, he suggested that the president needed to meet a high bar for demonstrating “cause” because of the level of independence the Federal Reserve enjoyed.
Trump also had to give Cook notice and some opportunity to respond before her termination, the majority said.
In response to the decision, Trump indicated on Truth Social that he would continue fighting to remove Cook, saying, “The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis; we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!”
