A President With More Control, But Less Power

The Supreme Court has ruled that federal agency commissioners protected from removal by statutes are unconstitutional, effectively ending the independence of certain administrative agencies. This decision increases presidential control over these agencies and marks a significant shift in the balance of power within the U.S. government.

The case, Trump v. Slaughter, involved President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commission commissioner appointed by President Joe Biden. The Court held that the statutory protections preventing her removal violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. This ruling clarifies that agency commissioners cannot be insulated from presidential removal, reaffirming the president’s authority to control executive agencies.

Historically, many independent agencies, established since 1887, have enjoyed protections that shielded their commissioners from removal, fostering bureaucratic independence. The 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States had previously upheld such independence, but the recent ruling overturns that precedent, emphasizing the unitary executive theory—that all executive power resides in the president and must be under his control.

Implications for Presidential Control and Bureaucratic Power

This ruling significantly increases the president’s authority over federal agencies, enabling greater control over policy implementation. It also marks a potential decline in the power of independent agencies, which have historically operated with a degree of insulation from political influence. The decision could reshape how executive power is exercised and checked in the United States, impacting regulatory agencies, administrative procedures, and the broader balance of government powers.

Historical and Constitutional Foundations of Agency Independence

Since the late 19th century, Congress has authorized independent agencies with commissioners protected from removal, aiming to insulate bureaucrats from political pressure. The 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor legitimized this independence, asserting that agencies could exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers without presidential interference. However, critics argued that this created a constitutional inconsistency, as it allowed agencies to exercise powers not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

The recent decision reaffirms the constitutional principle that executive power must remain in the president, who is constitutionally responsible for faithfully executing laws. The ruling emphasizes that personnel are policy—meaning that control over agency personnel equates to control over policy, reinforcing the president’s constitutional authority.

“The Constitution creates a unitary executive; agency commissioners protected from removal violate the separation of powers.”

— Supreme Court Justice

Unclear Impact on Existing Independent Agencies

It is still unclear how this ruling will be applied to other independent agencies with similar protections. The legal and political responses remain to be seen, and some agencies may seek to challenge or reinterpret the decision. The full practical impact on agency operations and administrative law is still developing.

Next Steps in Administrative Law and Agency Oversight

Legal challenges and legislative debates are expected to follow, potentially leading to new statutes clarifying the scope of presidential control over agencies. Congress may also consider reforms to balance agency independence with presidential authority. Additionally, the executive branch could adjust its approach to agency management in response to this ruling.

Key Questions

What does this ruling mean for independent agencies?

The ruling means that agencies cannot be protected from presidential removal, increasing presidential control but reducing bureaucratic independence.

Will all independent agencies lose their protections?

It is uncertain whether this ruling applies universally; legal challenges and interpretations will determine its scope.

How does this affect presidential power?

This decision strengthens the president’s authority to control and remove agency commissioners, reinforcing the constitutional principle of a unitary executive.

What are the broader implications for governance?

The ruling could lead to increased presidential influence over regulatory agencies and a shift in the balance of powers among government branches.

Source: The Atlantic