Supreme Court Backs White House Authority Over Agencies

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday signaled backing for White House authority over independent federal agencies, a move that could significantly expand presidential control and reshape U.S. administrative law.

While presenting their arguments, the conservative majority of justices seemed to align with President Donald Trump’s move to relieve members of agency boards of their duties, thereby making it possible to reverse a precedent from almost a hundred years that restricts the power to remove those who answer to the president.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh made the point very clear by saying that agency directors have “massive power over individual liberty and billion-dollar industries” and therefore should be made answerable.

On the other hand, liberal justices cautioned that if the court ruled in favor of the administration, it would mean granting the president a carte blanche to act thus weakening the independence of agencies that have been functioning for more than a hundred years.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was very concerned about the effects on agency expertise and warned that, if appointing became a political matter, qualified scientists, skilled economists, and other professionals might be replaced by those who are loyal but not knowledgeable with the complicated issues.

“If the president comes in and fires all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and replaces them with loyalists..., it is definitely not the citizens of the United States who will benefit,” Jackson declared.

The Trump administration sued to overturn Humphrey’s Executor arguing that it is no longer relevant and that the administrative state consisting of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Reserve should be more accountable to the president directly. Solicitor General D. John Sauer was on hand to defend the effort, claiming the decision “has not been time-tested” and was critical of the legal standard that has been safeguarding agency independence for almost 90 years.

Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to doubt the value of the long-established precedent when referring to Humphrey’s Executor as “a dried husk.” The conservative justices of the court have already indicated their readiness to allow the dismissal of agency officials even though the matter is still before the court, as they did in the recent moves against members of the Federal Reserve and other independent bodies.

The court’s ruling can lead to a power shift between the executive branch and independent agencies. For example, presidents would be allowed to relieve agency officials of their duties without giving a reason thus extending their control over the agencies but at the same time, the latter would lose their expertise, stability, and the nonpartisan nature of their functioning may be affected. In fact, the Federal Reserve might be an exception in the eyes of the court as it allows only two officials, i.e. Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Library of Congress Copyright Official Shira Perlmutter, who till now have been able to resist attempts to get them removed. This raises the question about the extent of the president's power to remove someone and whether the Federal Reserve falls under his control just like the other agencies.

The ruling of the court expected later this year will most probably determine the 2024 presidential election as well as the ongoing controversies about the executive power. Justice Neil Gorsuch commented that the decision would be “for the ages,” thus signifying its importance.

Moreover, the matter may influence the court’s stance on other issues of presidential immunity and authority, thus resembling decisions from the recent years that have widened the president’s ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌powers.