Trump asks Supreme Court to grant him unprecedented firing power over independent regulators, representing a major blow to the bureaucratic deep state.
At a Glance
- The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn a 90-year-old precedent that protects independent agency leaders from being fired by presidents
- Cases involve Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, who were reinstated by lower courts after being removed
- If successful, Trump’s legal challenge could dramatically shift power to the White House, potentially affecting agencies like the Federal Reserve and Federal Communications Commission
- The administration argues that laws protecting independent agencies unconstitutionally encroach on presidential powers
Constitutional Showdown Over Presidential Power
The Trump administration has launched a bold challenge to a foundational principle of American governance by asking the Supreme Court to allow the president to fire heads of independent regulatory agencies at will. This move could radically reshape the federal government’s structure, undoing nearly a century of established precedent that has maintained the independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, and others. The administration’s request aligns perfectly with conservatives’ long-standing concerns about the unchecked growth of the administrative state and unelected bureaucrats wielding significant power over Americans’ daily lives.
The specific cases before the Court involve Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board – both removed by Trump only to be reinstated by lower courts while litigation continues. The administration isn’t backing down, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that forcing a president to delegate executive power to agency heads who oppose administration policies is fundamentally unworkable.
“This situation is untenable, The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months.” – Solicitor General D. John Sauer
A 90-Year-Old Precedent on the Chopping Block
At the heart of this battle is the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which has long allowed job protections for leaders of independent agencies. This Roosevelt-era precedent has been the legal foundation preventing presidents from simply firing regulatory officials who make decisions they disagree with. The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to overturn this decision, which would represent a significant victory for those who believe in a unitary executive with robust constitutional powers as envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
The administration’s legal position is straightforward: laws that restrict a president’s ability to fire certain officials unconstitutionally infringe on executive authority granted by Article II of the Constitution. This “unitary executive theory” holds that the president should control all executive branch actions – a view that makes perfect sense to anyone who has actually read the Constitution and understands the separation of powers. Why should unelected bureaucrats be insulated from accountability to the one person voters actually chose to lead the executive branch?
The Real-World Impact
If Trump’s challenge succeeds, the implications would be far-reaching. The president would gain direct control over agencies that have operated with significant independence, including the Federal Reserve Board, which sets monetary policy, and the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates broadcasting and communications. This would provide a crucial check on the runaway regulatory state that has burdened businesses and ordinary Americans with excessive regulations and stifled economic growth for decades. It would return power to a democratically elected president instead of leaving it in the hands of career bureaucrats.
“it would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.” – Brianne Gorod
Critics like Brianne Gorod are right about one thing – this would indeed shake up how government operates. But that’s precisely what American voters elected Trump to do. The administrative state has grown bloated, unaccountable, and frequently hostile to the very citizens it supposedly serves. Trump’s efforts to replace independent agency leaders with business-friendly figures who understand the real-world impact of regulations isn’t some power grab – it’s fulfilling his promise to drain the swamp and make government work for the people rather than against them.
The Path Forward
The Supreme Court has already shown willingness to reconsider the constitutional status of independent agencies. In 2020, the Court found the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional due to its single director’s unchecked power, though that decision (Seila Law) didn’t fully overturn Humphrey’s Executor. Several conservative justices have signaled they’re open to going further to reign in the administrative state. This case represents the perfect opportunity to restore constitutional balance and deliver a meaningful victory for advocates of limited government.
The left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan predictably dissented in the CFPB case, arguing for the importance of administrative independence – but this merely highlights the fundamental divide in our politics today. Conservatives understand that unaccountable bureaucratic power threatens liberty, while progressives see independent agencies as a way to implement their agenda regardless of who voters elect. With Trump asking the Supreme Court to return significant power to the presidency, we may finally see the pendulum swing back toward constitutional governance after decades of administrative overreach.
Sources:
——————————
Quotes:
“interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power — or, more aptly, his aspiration — is flat wrong.” … https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-fire-independent-regulators/
“This situation is untenable, The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months.” … https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-fire-independent-regulators/
“it would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.” … https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-let-him-fire-independent-regulators/
