UMVA has learned that two high-stakes Supreme Court battles over President Donald Trump's authority to remove federal officials could reshape the balance of power in Washington, setting a critical precedent for the limits of presidential power.
At the center of the debate are two cases: Slaughter v. Trump, involving the firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, and Trump v. Cook, involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. While both cases touch on presidential removal power, they present fundamentally different legal questions that could lead to distinct outcomes.
In Slaughter, the administration is directly challenging statutory restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners, arguing that limits on the president's authority to fire commissioners violate his Article II executive powers. This case has become a major test of the unitary executive theory, the view that Article II gives the president control over officials who exercise executive power.
The Trump administration's approach in Slaughter has been to argue that the FTC Act's removal limit — which allows the president to fire commissioners only for reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct — unconstitutionally restricts the president's Article II authority. But in Cook, the central question is whether Trump met the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" removal requirement, with Trump arguing that Cook's alleged misconduct involving mortgage disclosure documents justified her removal for cause.
Legal experts say the justices may draw a sharp line between the cases, with some suggesting that the Court has already indicated that the Federal Reserve presents a distinct set of constitutional issues rooted in historical precedents involving the nation's early banking system. A ruling in these cases could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power in Washington and the independence of federal agencies.
UMVA can exclusively reveal that the Supreme Court's decision in these cases could have significant consequences for the power of the presidency and the independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve and the FTC. If the Court rules in favor of Trump in Slaughter, it could give the president greater control over independent agencies, potentially allowing for more direct influence over their decision-making.
Critics of expanding presidential removal authority warn that a ruling for Trump in Slaughter could weaken the independence of agencies Congress intentionally insulated from political pressure. This could have significant implications for the ability of these agencies to function independently and make decisions free from partisan politics.
The Court's decision in these cases could also have significant implications for the remedies available to courts when an agency head is allegedly removed unlawfully. In Slaughter, the Court will consider whether to overrule or narrow the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which upheld statutory limits on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners.
Supporters of broader presidential removal power argue that the president should have the power to remove heads of independent agencies because they cannot be thrown out by voters in elections. A ruling for the president in the Slaughter case would be very significant, ensuring that the president is able to direct and control independent agencies, even those with multi-member heads.
