The Supreme Court has significantly expanded presidential power, allowing the President to fire heads of independent federal agencies without cause, overturning a 90-year precedent. However, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook retains procedural protections, showcasing a nuanced ruling on executive authority.
Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Executive Power
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that President Trump has the authority to fire members of independent federal agencies without cause, overturning a 90-year-old precedent. The 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter struck down protections for agency heads, including those at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
However, in a separate but related case, Trump v. Cook, the court blocked Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, ruling 5-4 that she must be afforded procedural protections before removal. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored both opinions, emphasized the Fed’s historical independence from presidential control.
Key Developments and Legal Repercussions
The court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which had allowed Congress to limit presidential removal of agency heads to cases of inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. The majority, composed of all six conservative justices, argued that such protections violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred, stating, "Independent agencies are not so independent after all."
In contrast, the court’s ruling in Trump v. Cook preserved the Fed’s independence, with Roberts noting that Cook’s removal would effectively transform her position into at-will employment. The decision was joined by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court’s three liberal justices.
Reactions and Implications of the Ruling
President Trump celebrated the Slaughter ruling as a "Historic and Unprecedented" victory, calling it one of the most significant expansions of presidential power in decades. He also vowed to take "appropriate action" regarding Cook’s case, despite the court’s ruling.
Critics, including former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, warned that the decision undermines checks and balances, potentially allowing presidents to shape economic policy by removing agency heads who disagree with their agenda. Slaughter called the ruling a "massive transfer of power" from Congress to the president.
Legal and Historical Context of the Decisions
The court’s decisions highlight a tension between executive authority and regulatory independence. The Fed’s unique historical role—dating back to the First and Second Banks of the United States—was cited as a key factor in its protection. Meanwhile, the Slaughter ruling signals a broader shift in how independent agencies operate, with experts predicting increased presidential influence over regulatory bodies.
The cases also reflect the court’s evolving stance on precedent, with Roberts dismissing Humphrey’s Executor as a "result in search of a rationale." The decision may have lasting implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.