Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which challenges whether the President has the constitutional authority to dismiss heads of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without just cause. This challenge circumvents the constraints established by the seminal 1936 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which granted certain insulating protections to agency heads from presidential removal, affirming the quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative nature of their roles.
The popular narrative suggests that Humphrey’s Executor might be outright overturned in light of the Slaughter case. However, the situation demands a closer examination, especially given the Supreme Court’s indication in recent rulings such as Seila Law v. CFPB. These rulings question whether modern agency structures, like that of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the FTC, align with the protections afforded in Humphrey’s Executor.
In Seila Law, the court invalidated the independence of the CFPB, highlighting that its single-director structure was inconsistent with the independent agency model that Humphrey’s Executor protected. The court noted that many such agencies now possess significant executive powers, including rulemaking and enforcing penalties, far beyond simply offering legislative support or judicial recommendations.
This nuanced reassessment doesn’t necessarily demand overturning Humphrey’s Executor. Instead, the court’s deliberation might serve as a recalibration of the criteria applied for assessing the independence of specific agency powers. The Federal Trade Commission, now more involved in aggressive and policy-driven activities, might no longer fit within the original framework that justified its insulation from the presidency.
Furthermore, the current court’s inquiry into Trump v. Slaughter rephrased the issue as concerning the constitutional basis of the FTC’s statutory removal protections, rather than addressing a blanket invalidation of Humphrey’s Executor.
The deliberation by the Supreme Court might signal a move towards tailoring the Humphrey’s Executor doctrine to contemporary agency realities, redefining agency independence against an evolving regulatory backdrop. It offers a vision more focused on the specific agencies’ wielding of powers today rather than a categorical rejection of the foundational principle protecting their autonomy.
Legal professionals and scholars will be observing closely, as the court’s decision in this case — possibly recalibrating the boundaries of executive control over independent agencies — could have significant implications for how future administrations interact with and oversee regulatory bodies.