The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant case concerning the limits of presidential power over federal agency heads, focusing on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This review will revisit a 95-year-old precedent that restrains the president’s ability to remove FTC commissioners without clear cause such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The announcement comes amid ongoing debates over the balance of executive authority and agency independence.
The case centers around the firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter by former President Donald Trump. Slaughter initiated legal proceedings in March, contending that her dismissal violated the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), which safeguards FTC commissioners from at-will removals. In a July decision, the US District Court for the District of Columbia sided with Slaughter, but the Supreme Court subsequently stayed her reinstatement during the appeals process.
The Supreme Court’s review will address whether the protections in the FTCA are at odds with the constitutional principle of separation of powers, and whether judicial intervention is appropriate to prevent such removals. This particularly involves reconsidering the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the statutory removal protections and played a critical role in fostering independent federal agencies during the New Deal era.
Justice Elena Kagan, alongside Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, voiced strong dissent against the court’s decision to grant the application. Justice Kagan emphasized the deliberate intention of Congress to apply stringent removal criteria for commissioners like those at the FTC. She argued that independent agencies are designed to function with bipartisan and staggered member terms that insulate them from abrupt political influences.
Justice Kagan critiqued the court’s trend of enhancing presidential removal power, as observed in recent rulings concerning the National Labor Relations Board and other federal bodies. In her view, these decisions disturb the intended balance of independence for agencies with historically bipartisan roles, potentially reshaping the landscape of federal agency governance.
Oral arguments for this pivotal case are scheduled for December, setting the stage for an examination of long-standing principles around agency autonomy and executive power. The unfolding proceedings will likely have significant implications for the future of independent agencies across the United States. For more insights into the developments of this case, readers might consider further analysis by SCOTUSBlog.