Supreme Court to Hear Arguments In Trump’s Bid for Total Control of Government

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday over President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Rebecca Slaughter, the last remaining Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Through the case, the court’s Republican-appointed majority may shatter a key limit to the president’s ability to influence agencies that Congress designed to be insulated from direct White House control.

Should it side with the president, the Supreme Court could supercharge Trump’s effort to assert absolute control over agencies that regulate the economy, the stock market, federal campaign finance and communications.

In March, Trump fired Slaughter without cause, even though the 1914 law that established the FTC states that presidents can only remove commissioners for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”

Instead of stating a cause for her dismissal, Trump claimed Slaughter’s continued service on the independent commission was “inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities.”

“Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution,” Trump claimed in an email.

Slaughter’s dismissal was a direct challenge to Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., a landmark 1935 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Congress’ authority to protect the heads or board members of independent agencies from arbitrary presidential dismissals.

Slaughter challenged her dismissal, arguing Trump violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and Supreme Court precedent. 

Citing Humphrey’s, lower courts agreed with Slaughter and reversed her dismissal. 

In September, however, the Supreme Court stayed Slaughter’s return to the FTC — effectively exempting Trump from standing court precedent without explanation.

Alongside blocking Slaughter’s reinstatement, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in on her case and ordered Monday’s hearing. 

The court is set to hear arguments on whether the “for cause” removal protections currently enjoyed by FTC members violate the president’s authority and, if so, whether Humphrey’s should be overturned.

The Trump administration has asked the court to overturn Humphrey’s, claiming that the  protections impose “a distinct constitutional harm” on the president by limiting his ability to remove those who are exercising executive power on his behalf.

The government’s argument largely stems from the unitary executive theory, a once-fringe legal doctrine which asserts that the president must have unlimited power to control the actions of the four million people who make up the executive branch. 

It has been the guiding theory behind Trump’s authoritarian bid to overhaul the executive branch without input from Congress, which has a constitutional authority to define what the federal government looks like.

Slaughter, and several other outside parties who have asked the court to reject her dismissal, have argued that Humphrey’s is fundamental to upholding the rule of law and shielding certain governmental processes from undue political interference. 

Based on its response to Slaughter’s removal and its actions in other dismissal cases, it appears the Supreme Court’s conservative majority intends to significantly narrow or overturn Humphrey’s.

Before it stayed Slaughter’s reinstatement, the majority also upheld Trump’s dismissals of members of two other independent agencies. 

In that ruling, conservative justices claimed that lower court orders reinstating those officials harmed the president — a clear sign that they believe at least some removal protections violate the separation of powers. 

But in a curious move, the court explicitly stated that certain members of the Federal Reserve should be protected from arbitrary dismissals because the central bank “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

Just weeks after the Supreme Court issued its carve-out for Fed officials, however, Trump challenged the central bank’s independence by attempting to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook for alleged actions that were unrelated to her professional performance.

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked Cook’s dismissal and will hear arguments over Trump’s attempt to remove her in January.