Top court

The Supreme Court of the United States initially granted the emergency of the Trump administration to dismiss the heads of two independent agencies, the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The vote was 6-3 with the liberals in Dissens.

It is the dismissal of President Trump's board member, Gwynne Wilcox, who still has three years in her term as a board member, and Cathy Harris, who is still a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board for four years in her term, which takes over the employment manufacturers brought by federal workers.

Shortly after Trump took office for the second time Defense staff changes throughout the federal government and Discharge of the heads of several administrative authoritiesIncluding Wilcox and Harris, both bidges.

The headlights contradict the statutes enacted by the congress, which expressly prevent the president from releasing members of the NLRB and the Merit Systems Protections board for no reason. Thanks to a long -term decision of the Supreme Court, these protective measures exist that the basis for the work of most independent federal authorities forms for almost a century, including legal provisions for many agencies that restrict the number of agency members from one party.

Ironically, the long -term precedent occurred in the case of 1933 when President Franklin Roosevelt, William Humphrey, one of five members of the Federal Trade Commission. Roosevelt had no problem with Humphrey's work. The only reason for the dismissal was that Humphrey had been appointed by the former President, Republican Herbert Hoover, and was a conservative who did not agree with Roosevelt's political views. Since the FTC was observed via many progressive New Deal guidelines, Roosevelt wanted Humphrey to be replaced by his own representative.

However, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in 1935 that the President FTC Commissioner could not reject the way he could have his own cabinet or other members of his administration, and that he could only relieve members of independent agencies for reasons, misconduct or other poor behaviors.

While the precedent of Humphrey is still technically available, the current Supreme Court, which is dominated by a conservative majority of 6 to 3, has been picked up for years without fully overriding it.

In 2020, the High Court restricted Humphrey's decision when President Trump allowed President Trump to dismiss the head of the Head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, another independent federal authority. In this decision, the Supreme Court distinguishes between independent agencies, which are operated by a single director that the President may release for any reason, and independent agencies that are carried out by a board of directors that consists of both Republicans and Democrats, which can still only be released because of poor behavior.

In what the last remains of the 90-year-old Humphrey case is not challenged by any other president-Multi-Member administrations of independent agencies, such as the NLRB or MSPB, are currently protected. However, many of the court's six conservatives seem to be Jugen to overthrow the precedent of the Humphrey.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh in particular in front of the Court of Justice Problems with the decision of Humphrey repeated with the decision. But he's not alone, justice Neil Gorsuch believes that The executive was weakened unconstitutionally through a surplus of independent regulatory authorities and officials of the executive who go beyond the president's control. Judge Samuel Alito expressed similar views before joining the court. The presidency proverb“The President not only has some executive powers, but also The Executive power – the whole. “

Although the decision on Thursday was technically temporary, his tone was quite final – and exactly in the direction in which the conservative court has struggled in recent years. In addition, 90 years ago, the order turns the unanimous decision of the court that a president cannot relieve the agency's leaders just because he does not agree to their views.

The language of the two -sided opinion clearly predicts the possible result of the case if it is probably argued before the court next year. For example, there is a carver for the Federal Reserve, which you essentially insulate before ordering. The idea that the President of the Fed could relieve has frightened the markets. That was the fly in the ointment of those who correct the federal authorities and want to make all commissions such as the SEC and the FTC, which are shot by the president at will.

Richter Elena Kagan Alexander Hamilton quoted in contradiction with the words: “In order to avoid arbitrary discretion in court, it is indispensable that they should be bound by strict rules and precedent.

And she added: “It happens through the rules for briefing and argument and the time of the time for the discipline of our decision-making.