Trump Just Won A 91-Year Supreme Court Battle: ‘This Is Historic’
The U.S. Supreme Court last week significantly expanded presidential authority over the executive branch, ruling 6-3 that presidents may remove officials from independent federal agencies without the firing protections that had been recognized for decades.
The decision gives President Donald Trump the authority to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee whose case became a central test of the administration’s effort to broaden presidential removal powers.
In doing so, the Court overturned its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ending a longstanding precedent that allowed Congress to provide certain executive branch officials with protections from at-will removal.
The ruling is expected to have broad implications for independent agencies that oversee areas including labor relations, federal employment, workplace discrimination, consumer protection, aviation safety and financial regulation, The Hill noted.
Advertisement
In an analysis of the ruling, commentator Ben Dyke called it a “bombshell,” adding, “This is historic.”
He also indicated that the majority of justices were correct in returning constitutional power to the president, who is the head of the Executive Branch and should not be impeded by the Legislative Branch from exercising his authorities.
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the ruling.
Beyond the Federal Trade Commission, the ruling is expected to affect roughly two dozen multimember independent agencies across the federal government, giving presidents broader authority to replace commissioners and board members with appointees who align with their policy priorities.
“The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, per The Hill.
“It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him,” their dissent continued.
“In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty,” the dissent continued.
But the dissent is at odds with the plain language of the Constitution.
As Dyke pointed out, Article II begins with this sentence: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
That, he says, makes clear that the founders intended for the president alone to make all decisions regarding Executive Branch authorities, not the heads of Executive Branch offices established by Congress, many of whom may not share the president’s policy preferences and could slow-walk or even ignore his orders.
For her part, Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, a practice justices use when they want to emphasize their strong disagreements with a case.
For years, conservative legal scholars and advocacy groups argued that the Humphrey’s Executor precedent improperly limited the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch and conflicted with the separation of powers.
In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority had already narrowed the scope of the 1935 ruling before formally overturning it.
Trump hailed the ruling in a Truth Social post.
“This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s,” he wrote.
“It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he added.
After returning to the White House, Trump set the stage for the Supreme Court to revisit the precedent by dismissing the heads of several independent federal agencies despite statutory protections against removal.
Those officials generally prevailed in the lower courts, which remained bound by the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision.
The Supreme Court, however, has the authority to overturn or modify its precedents, ultimately leading to the latest ruling.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author's opinion.
Paul Threatens Fauci for Pleading 5th in Hearing, Removes Fauci’s Attorney
Republican lawmakers are intensifying calls for greater scrutiny of Dr. Anthony Fauci’s pandemic-era decisions and public statements.
Fauci refused to answer questions from members of a Senate committee at a hearing on Wednesday about his actions as the government’s top infectious disease expert during the COVID pandemic.
Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul lit into Fauci to begin the hearing and threatened “repercussions” for Fauci for invoking his 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer questions.
“Dr. Fauci, would you like to at least answer this one question for us today and let us know whether or not you’ve changed your mind on whether or not the benefits of gain-of-function research outweigh the risks?” Rand asked.
“On the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer, based upon my rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution,” Fauci replied.
“The chairman has denied your assertion of privilege and directed you to answer, but you nonetheless refuse and stand on privilege despite the existence of the pardon,” Paul shot back.
Paul declared: “The committee will have to consider, after this hearing, what appropriate action should be taken against you for the failure to testify after being directed to do so. It’s against the law to obstruct an investigation of Congress. There will be repercussions to your refusal to testify today.”
Paul has long argued that Fauci should see prison time, alleging he lied to Congress as far back as 2021.
“It’s a felony punishable by five years in jail,” Paul told Fox News host Sean Hannity in September of 2021.
“I don’t think Biden Department of Justice will do anything with it, but … it is very dangerous to have public officials who we need to have trust in coming and lying to us. But he has lied dozens of times. Usually he tells us it’s for our own good,” Paul said.
Things also got heated when Paul removed one of Fauci’s lawyers from the hearing after the lawyer repeatedly talked over Paul to defend Fauci, even though he had not been invited to speak.
Advertisement
“You will respect these proceedings. You were told not to sit at the table. You insist on sitting at the table. And we told you you would not be recognized. You are not invited here for testimony, sir. You are being disruptive,” Paul declared.
“Would you behave this way in a courtroom? No, because the judge would put you in jail. I can’t do that today, but I can have you escorted from the premises,” Paul added.
“So I would say, sir, sit quietly and don’t say another word. I said sit quietly. You are not recognized. Another word and you’re gone,” Paul declared.
Advertisement
After another back-and-forth and the attorney’s refusal to listen, Paul then had security remove him from the room.
Before the hearing, President Donald Trump lashed out at Fauci.
May you like
“‘Operation Warp Speed’ was a SPECTACULAR SUCCESS, in fact, many say, one of the most successful things ever done by an American President. I overrode Fauci on this. His ideas were CRAZY,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday.
“I Inherited Fauci, who was there since the 1980’s, but with each passing day, relied less and less on him. He made too many bad calls, like on MASKS. Remember at the beginning he was an anti-masker. He then switched to a super-masker. In any event I didn’t let him shut the Country down, although he wanted to,” Trump continued.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(1048x378:1050x380)/Jenna-Bush-Hager-100223-c94955eb572d47ea815a340c18c6e771.jpg)