 |
| Daniel Torok/The White House/Wikimedia Commons |
The arguments from Slaughter’s attorney didn’t appear convincing to the court’s conservative justices.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Monday that it’s prepared to recognize what the Constitution has unequivocally held for centuries — that the president controls the executive branch of government.
During oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter, a majority of justices appeared favorable to the Trump administration’s arguments regarding President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). As The Federalist previously reported, the case deals with presidents’ ability to remove members of so-called “independent agencies” and could result in the court overturning Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935), which upheld statutory limitations on presidents’ removal powers.
In challenging the precedent established in Humphrey’s, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer posited the unitary executive theory, a doctrine that rests on the notion that the president has absolute authority over the executive branch. He argued that Humphrey’s infringes upon this constitutionally prescribed power, and as such, “must be overruled.”
Humphrey’s “has become a decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions,” Sauer said. “As Justice Thomas wrote in [Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau], Humphrey’s poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people. And, as Seila Law held, the modern expansion of the federal bureaucracy sharpens the Court’s duty to ensure that the executive branch is overseen by a president accountable to the people.”
While many of the court’s Republican appointees appeared generally favorable to Sauer’s arguments, it was clear that the body’s Democrat appointees were not.
Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan espoused fears about what kind of power presidents would be given should SCOTUS adopt Sauer’s theory, with the latter specifically focusing on what kinds of authority presidents would have on bureaucratic rulemaking and other powers Congress outsourced to the executive. Meanwhile, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson effectively ran a full-court press for the unelected “experts” engaging in many of the activities Kagan described — a move she later repeated when speaking with Slaughter’s attorney, Amit Agarwal.
In contrast to the government’s position, Agarwal argued that a president’s “constitutional duty to execute the law does not give him the power to violate that law with impunity,” and that Trump’s firing of Slaughter is unlawful because “multi-member commissions with members” have enjoyed “some kind of removal protection” since the founding era.
“No tool of interpretation clearly supports the president’s assertion of an unrestricted and indefeasible authority to fire the heads of traditional independent agencies like the Federal Elections Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” Agarwal said. “The political branches are more than up to the task of finding reasonable legislative solutions that strike an appropriate balance. That kind of legislative solution is far preferable than abandoning a foundational precedent on which so much of modern governance is based.”
Differing from the views of their Democrat-appointed colleagues, the court’s Republican appointees appeared skeptical of Agarwal’s claims. Many of the latter justices specifically homed in on questioning the limits of the attorney’s arguments and whether Congress may restrict a president’s power to remove members of certain cabinet-level departments and other executive agencies. --->READ MORE HERE
Most Supreme Court justices on Monday seemed inclined to allow President Trump to tell a former Federal Trade Commission honcho that she’s fired, in a case that could dramatically expand presidential power over independent agencies.
Despite a statute insulating FTC commissioners from being fired without cause, the high court’s conservative majority seemed concerned that Congress had usurped too much executive power from the presidency with the formation of independent agencies.
“You’ve mentioned many times [that] you can just go to Congress to fix this. Well, once the powers taken away from the president, it’s very hard to get it back in the legislative process,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told an attorney for former FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter during oral arguments.
“Independent agencies shift power from the presidency to the Congress. Everyone recognizes that the Congress has more control over the independent agencies than they do over the executive agencies.”
At issue before the high court was Trump’s firing of Slaughter from her perch as one of five FTC commissioners in March.
The Federal Trade Commission Act stipulates that commissioners can only be ousted for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Multiple lower courts have ruled against Trump on the firing. But in September, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s firing of Slaughter to take effect while it considers the case.
US Solicitor General John Sauer contended that the statute for the FTC and the fundamental structure of many independent agencies essentially encroach upon the president’s executive power.
Looming over that argument were concerns that Congress also delegated some of its legislative powers to independent agencies. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch mused that that dynamic might have to change. --->READ MORE HEREFOLLOW LINK BELOW TO A RELEVANT STORY:
+++++Supreme Court win for Trump in FTC case would restore the Founders’ design+++++
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment