Latest news with #NationalLaborRelationsActof1935
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
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
Yahoo
04-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
An Executive Power Case That Trump May Win
According to the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the presidentially appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board (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 President Donald Trump recently fired NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox for another cause. Namely, Trump fired President Joe Biden's appointee because her policy views did not align with his. As Trump explained in the letter that fired her, Wilcox's work at the NLRB was not "consistent with the objectives of my administration." The president added: "The aims and purposes of the Administration with respect to the work on the Board can be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection." Wilcox filed suit, arguing that her firing was illegal under federal law. She won an early victory when Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that Wilcox must be reinstated. "Because this statute is a valid exercise of congressional power," the judge wrote, "the President's excuse for his illegal act cannot be sustained." But Trump's rationale for the firing has proven to be more sustainable on appeal. On March 28, a divided 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order to stay the lower court's ruling while the Trump administration's appeal moved forward. In other words, the D.C. Circuit let Trump's firing of Wilcox go into effect. What explains the D.C. Circuit's actions? After all, the stated cause for Wilcox's firing would seem to be flatly inconsistent with federal law. The answer lies in part in the D.C. Circuit's reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 opinion in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That case centered on the authority of the president to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), who, according to federal law, could only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." Seila Law, however, held that such a limit on the president's removal power was unconstitutional. "The CFPB Director has no boss, peers, or voters to report to," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 5-4 majority. "Yet the Director wields vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory authority over a significant portion of the U. S. economy. The question before us is whether this arrangement violates the Constitution's separation of powers." Roberts held that it did. As a result, the director of the CFPB "must be removable by the president at will." According to D.C. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, Seila Law clearly supports Trump's ability to fire NLRB member Wilcox for political reasons. "The Supreme Court has said that Congress cannot restrict the President's removal authority over agencies that 'wield substantial executive power,'" Walker wrote. Such "precedents control this court's case." Walker is probably right that the same Supreme Court majority that handed down Seila Law will—when the time comes—rule in favor of the president in Wilcox v. Trump. Of course, there are differences between the two cases. In Seila Law, for example, the Supreme Court repeatedly stressed the fact that the CFPB was led by a single director. The NLRB, by contrast, is led by five members, some of whom are Democratic appointees and some of whom are Republican appointees. But such differences probably won't carry much weight if the same Seila Law majority agrees that the NLRB, like the CFPB before it, wields executive authority outside of the executive branch's control. I suspect that a majority of the Supreme Court is likely to see it that way and will probably decide the case in favor of Trump. The post An Executive Power Case That Trump May Win appeared first on
