The Supreme Court appeared poised to allow President Trump to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission during oral arguments Monday.
Why it matters: A win for the president in Trump vs. Slaughter would be a major blow to a 90-year-old precedent that has kept the job of independent agency commissioners safe from being fired for political reasons.
Driving the news: Trump teed up the case when he fired Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, Democratic FTC commissioners, earlier this year.
- The case focuses on the precedent of Humphrey's Executor, a 1935 ruling which holds that independent agency commissioners cannot be fired without specific cause.
What they're saying: The conservative majority on the court seemed hesitant to deny presidents the power to fire agency commissioners.
- "Once the power is taken away from the president, it's very hard to get it back in the legislative process," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not appear to support an argument that the protection of independent agency commissioners has gone back to the country's founding. Chief Justice John Roberts said the FTC has a lot more power today than it did in 1935, making the precedent less powerful.
- U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that Humphrey's Executor, which has been weakened but not eliminated in recent years, limits presidential powers in an unconstitutional way. He described some agencies as "headless" and "junior varsity legislatures."
Liberal justices asked why the court would overturn a longstanding precedent and imply the president does not trust Congress to give agencies the right amount of power.
- They also argued that independent agencies have roots in the country's founding, and most are formed just like the FTC.
- "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to Sauer. "Independent agencies have been around since the Founding.... This is not a modern contrivance."
- "Once you're down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop," said Justice Elena Kagan, arguing that the "real-world consequences" of handing Trump a win here would give presidents too much power.
What to watch: The justices will have to parse this case with upcoming arguments over Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and determine whether presidential power should be regarded differently when it comes to the nation's central bank.
- The court should rule by the end of June.
