The Executive Power Case That Unites Donald Trump and Franklin Roosevelt
The U.S. Supreme Court has just taken a major step toward endorsing a broad view of executive power that was first championed by former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and is now championed by President Donald Trump.
In an unsigned order issued Thursday in Trump v. Wilcox, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that blocked Trump from removing Gywnne Wilcox from her position as a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). In so doing, a majority of the Supreme Court not only allowed Trump's firing of the Joe Biden appointee to go into effect; the Court also signaled that the New Deal era precedent which strictly limits the president's power to fire "independent" agency heads such as Wilcox is facing impending legal doom.
To understand the importance of Trump v. Wilcox, it is necessary to first understand the importance of Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). William Humphrey was a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) appointed in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge. In 1933, with the New Deal in full swing, FDR demanded Humphrey's resignation. "I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission," Roosevelt wrote to Humphrey, "and frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have full confidence."
In other words, Roosevelt wanted Humphrey gone from the FTC for purely political reasons. FDR desired to replace the conservative Coolidge appointee with a trusted New Dealer of his choosing. So, when Humphrey refused to voluntarily depart, Roosevelt fired him. The resulting lawsuit by Humphrey ultimately landed at the Supreme Court two years later.
It would be a resounding win for Humphrey. The only downside for the fired commissioner was that he did not live to see it, having died of a stroke one year earlier. However, as the legal historian William E. Leuchtenburg has explained, "the executor of his estate, Samuel Rathburn, took over as plaintiff seeking to recover that portion of Humphrey's salary payable from the day of his removal to the day of his death. Humphrey had always been a bare-fisted brawler, and his ghost was to prove an even feistier adversary."
The 9–0 ruling in Humphrey's Executor was a stinging defeat for FDR. The Court flatly forbade Roosevelt—and every other president—from firing agency heads like Humphrey for purely political reasons. The FTC "cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or an eye of the executive," declared the Court. "We think it plain under the Constitution that illimitable power of removal is not possessed by the President in respect of officers of the character of those just named."
Which brings us back to Trump v. Wilcox. According to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the presidentially appointed members of the NLRB "may be removed by the President, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause." Yet Trump fired Wilcox from the board for what is plainly an "other cause." According to the termination letter sent by Trump, Wilcox's work at the NLRB was not "consistent with the objectives of my administration." Trump fired Wilcox for the same sort of purely political reasons that Roosevelt fired Humphrey.
That is why the Supreme Court's order in favor of Trump is so significant. It essentially serves notice that the days of Humphrey's Executor are numbered. By allowing Trump's firing of Wilcox to go into effect while the case plays out in the lower courts, the Supreme Court effectively expanded every president's power over agencies like the NLRB beyond the limits previously set by the Court in 1935.
"Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President," the Court's order in Trump v. Wilcox declared, "he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents." And in "our judgment," the order continued, "the Government is likely to show" that a NLRB board member qualifies as an officer who "exercise[s] considerable executive power."
Writing in dissent, Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that "our Humphrey's decision remains good law, and it forecloses both the President's firings and the Court's decision to award emergency relief."
But as Kagan's dissent also makes clear, a majority of the Court thinks otherwise, meaning that it is now only a matter of time before Humphrey's Executor officially ceases to be good law.
Thanks to Trump, Roosevelt's ghost may soon be getting the last laugh over Humphrey's.
The post The Executive Power Case That Unites Donald Trump and Franklin Roosevelt appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump signs resolutions killing California's zero-emissions rules
This story was originally published on Trucking Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Trucking Dive newsletter. President Donald Trump moved to sever California's EPA waivers by signing a series of joint resolutions Thursday, rolling back the Golden State's strict truck and auto emissions policies. The president's signing of joint resolutions under the Congressional Review Act reverses the Biden administration's approval of California's Advanced Clean Trucks rule. That earlier rule called for requiring 75% of Class 8 trucks sold in the state to be zero-emissions vehicles by 2035. Another resolution also prevents the state's low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions rule for heavy-duty trucks from being implemented, per a statement by the president. The NOx rule intended to regulate emissions from manufacturers by cutting heavy-duty NOx emissions by 90% and overhaul engine testing procedures. The Trump administration has described his predecessor's environmental policies as overreach and unjustified mandates. Trump said the congressional moves he signed further restrict California from implementing a similar policy in the future. "Under the Congressional Review Act, the EPA cannot approve any future waivers that are 'substantially the same' as those disapproved in the joint resolutions," Trump said in a statement. "Accordingly, the joint resolutions prohibit the EPA from approving future waivers for California that would impose California's policy goals across the entire country and violate fundamental constitutional principles of federalism, ending the electric vehicle mandate for good," the statement said. In response, California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared the federal measures illegal and moved to sue the federal government, seeking to pursue the state's zero-emission vehicle policy. Newsom signed an executive order on Thursday for the state to continue regulation requiring that 100% of sales of new vehicles be zero emission by 2035 for cars, pickup trucks and drayage trucks and by 2045 for medium- and heavy-duty trucks. Trucking leaders applauded Trump for the measures. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association said the news was a big win for both men and women behind the wheel. 'Our 150,000 small-business members have been saying it all along—electric trucks just aren't a realistic option right now. They're too expensive, the charging infrastructure isn't there,' OOIDA President Todd Spencer said in an emailed press release to Trucking Dive. Industry advocates, including the American Trucking Associations and the Washington Trucking Associations, also warned that electric truck technology and charging infrastructure were not caught up to accommodate California's ambitious EV policies. 'We've done our part to reduce carbon emissions while keeping America's economy moving,' ATA President and CEO Chris Spear said in a press release. 'But what we need is federal leadership to set realistic and achievable national emissions standards. And today brings us one step closer toward that goal,' he added. Werner Enterprises truck driver Gina Jones shared a similar sentiment, speaking as part of the signing ceremony at the White House. 'We cannot allow one state's regulations to disrupt our entire nation's supply chain,' Jones said. 'Allowing California to do so would have [negatively] impacted the hundreds of thousands of truck drivers who deliver critical goods across the country each and every day.' Recommended Reading Congress revokes Advanced Clean Trucks waiver, creating ambiguity for refuse fleets Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio
32 minutes ago
Trump clears path for Nippon Steel investment in US Steel, so long as it fits the government's terms
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order paving the way for a Nippon Steel investment in U.S. Steel, so long as the Japanese company complies with a 'national security agreement' submitted by the federal government. Trump's order didn't detail the terms of the national security agreement. But the iconic American steelmaker and Nippon Steel said in a joint statement that the agreement stipulates that approximately $11 billion in new investments will be made by 2028 and includes giving the U.S. government a ' golden share" — essentially veto power to ensure the country's national security interests are protected against cutbacks in steel production. 'We thank President Trump and his Administration for their bold leadership and strong support for our historic partnership," the two companies said. "This partnership will bring a massive investment that will support our communities and families for generations to come. We look forward to putting our commitments into action to make American steelmaking and manufacturing great again.' The companies have completed a U.S. Department of Justice review and received all necessary regulatory approvals, the statement said. 'The partnership is expected to be finalized promptly,' the statement said. U.S. Steel rose $2.66, or 5%, to $54.85 in afterhours trading Friday. Nippon Steel's original bid to buy the Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel in late 2023 had been valued at $55 per share. The companies offered few details on how the golden share would work, what other provisions are in the national security agreement and how specifically the $11 billion would be spent. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the order 'ensures U.S. Steel will remain in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and be safeguarded as a critical element of America's national and economic security.' James Brower, a Morrison Foerster lawyer who represents clients in national security-related matters, said such agreements with the government typically are not disclosed to the public, particularly by the government. They can become public, but it's almost always disclosed by a party in the transaction, such as a company — like U.S. Steel — that is publicly held, Brower said. The mechanics of how a golden share would work will depend on the national security agreement, but in such agreements it isn't unusual to give the government approval rights over specific activities, Brower said. U.S. Steel made no filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday. Nippon Steel originally offered nearly $15 billion to purchase U.S. Steel in an acquisition that had been delayed on national security concerns starting during Joe Biden's presidency. As it sought to win over American officials, Nippon Steel gradually increased the amount of money it was pledging to invest into U.S. Steel. American officials now value the transaction at $28 billion, including the purchase bid and a new electric arc furnace — a more modern steel mill that melts down scrap — that they say Nippon Steel will build in the U.S. after 2028. Nippon Steel had pledged to maintain U.S. Steel's headquarters in Pittsburgh, put U.S. Steel under a board with a majority of American citizens and keep plants operating. It also said it would protect the interests of U.S. Steel in trade matters and it wouldn't import steel slabs that would compete with U.S. Steel's blast furnaces in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Trump opposed the purchase while campaigning for the White House, and using his authority Biden blocked the transaction on his way out of the White House. But Trump expressed openness to working out an arrangement once he returned to the White House in January. Trump said Thursday that he would as president have 'total control' of what U.S. Steel did as part of the investment. Trump said then that the deal would preserve '51% ownership by Americans,' although Nippon Steel has never backed off its stated intention of buying and controlling U.S. Steel as a wholly owned subsidiary. 'We have a golden share, which I control,' Trump said. Trump added that he was 'a little concerned' about what presidents other than him would do with their golden share, 'but that gives you total control.' The proposed merger had been under review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, during the Trump and Biden administrations. The order signed Friday by Trump said the CFIUS review provided 'credible evidence' that Nippon Steel 'might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,' but such risks might be 'adequately mitigated' by approving the proposed national security agreement. The order doesn't detail the perceived national security risk and only provides a timeline for the national security agreement. The White House declined to provide details on the terms of the agreement. The order said the draft agreement was submitted to U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel on Friday. The two companies must successfully execute the agreement as decided by the Treasury Department and other federal agencies that are part CFIUS by the closing date of the transaction.
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Citizens of Augusta prepare ahead for ‘No King's' protest
AUGUSTA, Ga (WJBF) – Protestors will be waving their flags and signs in opposition to the Trump administration. This is just one of more than 1,000 protestors that are expected to happen on Flag Day across the country; there is also a protest planned in Aiken. People joined together before the protest to make their flags and signs. Krista Gentry, Communication Lead for Indivisible CSRA, said, 'A lot of the people in the community are really upset about what is going on, on a national level in our country and they're scared, and they want to come out and show that they're not okay with what's going on and want to see changes.' The name 'No King's' came from the 50501-organization dismissing the idea of a 'king' ruling the United States, advocating for democracy. Organizers say the protests are purposefully happening on the Army's 250th birthday, Flag Day and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. 'We just want to draw attention away from that and to communities. We don't want this authoritarian feeling celebration happening for one person in Washington D.C. I think it's crossing a dangerous line with the use of the military,' said Gentry. 1,400 people are already signed up to attend the protest in Augusta with the potential for more to show up. 'It's actually really, really encouraging and is instilling my faith again in humanity and our country. The community here is so supportive, and I think they really care about what's going on and they want to make their voices heard,' Gentry said. Organizers say this will be a nonviolent protest and anyone who does not follow that will be asked to leave. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
