Latest news with #independentagencies
Fox News
4 days ago
- Business
- Fox News
FTC firings take spotlight in Trump's fight to erase independence of agencies
The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent agencies, but one case still moving through the legal system carries the greatest implications yet for a president's authority to do that. In Slaughter v. Trump, a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission has vowed to fight what she calls her "illegal firing," setting up a possible scenario in which the case lands before the Supreme Court. The case would pose the most direct question yet to the justices about where they stand on Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the nearly century-old decision regarding a president's power over independent regulatory agencies. John Shu, a constitutional law expert who served in both Bush administrations, told Fox News Digital he thinks the high court is likely to side with the president if and when the case arrives there. "I think it's unlikely that Humphrey's Executor survives the Supreme Court, at least in its current form," Shu said, adding he anticipates the landmark decision will be overturned or "severely narrowed." Humphrey's Executor centered on President Franklin D. Roosevelt's decision to fire an FTC commissioner with whom he disagreed politically. The case marked the first instance of the Supreme Court limiting a president's removal power by ruling that Roosevelt overstepped his authority. The court found that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without a reason, such as malfeasance, before their seven-year terms ended, as outlined by Congress in the FTC Act. However, the FTC's functions, which largely center on combating anticompetitive business practices, have expanded in the 90 years since Humphrey's Executor. "The Federal Trade Commission of 1935 is a lot different than the Federal Trade Commission today," Shu said. He noted that today's FTC can open investigations, issue subpoenas, bring lawsuits, impose financial penalties and more. The FTC now has executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, Shu said. If the Supreme Court's decision to temporarily allow two labor board members' firings is any indication, the high court stands ready to make the FTC less independent and more accountable to Trump. In a 6-3 order, the Supreme Court cited the "considerable executive power" that the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board have, saying a president "may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf." The order did not mention Humphrey's Executor, but that and other moves indicate the Supreme Court has been chipping away at the 90-year-old ruling and is open to reversing it. The case of Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya gets closest to the heart of Humphrey's Executor. Slaughter enjoyed a short-lived victory when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., found that Trump violated the Constitution and ruled in her favor on July 17. She was able to return to the FTC for a few days, but the Trump administration appealed the decision and, on July 21, the appellate court paused the lower court judge's ruling. Judge Loren AliKhan had said in her summary judgment that Slaughter's case was almost identical to William Humphrey's. "It is not the role of this court to decide the correctness, prudence, or wisdom of the Supreme Court's decisions—even one from ninety years ago," AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote. "Whatever the Humphrey's Executor Court may have thought at the time of that decision, this court will not second-guess it now." The lawsuit arose from Trump firing Slaughter and Bedoya, the two Democratic-appointed members of the five-member commission. They alleged that Trump defied Humphrey's Executor by firing them in March without cause in a letter that "nearly word-for-word" mirrored the one Roosevelt sent a century ago. Bedoya has since resigned, but Slaughter is not backing down from a legal fight in which Trump appears to have the upper hand. "Like dozens of other federal agencies, the Federal Trade Commission has been protected from presidential politics for nearly a century," Slaughter said in a statement after she was re-fired. "I'll continue to fight my illegal firing and see this case through, because part of why Congress created independent agencies is to ensure transparency and accountability." Now a three-judge panel comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee is considering a longer-term pause and asked for court filings to be submitted by July 29, meaning the judges could issue their decision soon thereafter.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Lets Trump Oust Top Consumer-Safety Officials
(Bloomberg) -- A divided US Supreme Court let President Donald Trump temporarily remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, extending a line of decisions giving the White House more control over independent agencies. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US Why the Federal Reserve's Building Renovation Costs $2.5 Billion The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Milan Corruption Probe Casts Shadow Over Property Boom Over dissents from the court's three liberals, the justices on Wednesday put on hold a federal district court decision that said Trump was bound by job protections created by Congress for CPSC members. US District Judge Matthew Maddox's June 13 decision had reinstated the three commissioners after Trump fired them in May. The order is the latest to chip away at a landmark 1935 Supreme Court ruling that said Congress could shield at least some high-ranking officials from being fired to insulate them from political pressures. The ruling, known as Humphrey's Executor, allowed the independent agencies that came to proliferate across the US government. The Supreme Court in May let Trump remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. The court suggested in that decision that Trump's power wouldn't extend to firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell — at least in the absence of a legitimate reason like misconduct. The majority on Wednesday said the CPSC case was 'squarely controlled' by the earlier ruling. Although the court said it wasn't conclusively deciding the merits of either case, the two-paragraph order said the president should be allowed to oust officials in the meantime. 'The government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,' the court said, repeating a line from the earlier decision. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted the ruling, saying the court had 'all but overturned' the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling. 'Once again, this court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,' Kagan wrote for the group. Job Protections Federal law says CPSC commissioners can be fired from their seven-year terms only for 'neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.' Trump nonetheless fired CPSC Commissioners Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. on May 8 and 9. Maddox ordered all three reinstated on June 13, citing the Humphrey's Executor ruling. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration's request to put Maddox's ruling on hold, prompting the government to turn to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the president could fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, saying the Constitution's separation of powers requires such a powerful executive branch figure to be accountable to the president. Defenders of Humphrey's Executor say the Constitution gives Congress the flexibility to create agencies that rely on expert leadership and are independent from the White House. The case is Trump v. Boyle, 25A11. (Updates with excerpts from order, dissent starting in fifth paragraph.) Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border What the Tough Job Market for New College Grads Says About the Economy How Starbucks' CEO Plans to Tame the Rush-Hour Free-for-All ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Washington Post
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Trump's firing of 2 Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission was unconstitutional, judge rules
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump illegally fired two Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year in his efforts to exert control over independent agencies across the government. One of the commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya, resigned after suing to challenge the firings. The other plaintiff, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, can now resume her duties as commissioner because Trump lacks the constitutional authority to remove her, the judge ruled Thursday. Attorneys for the Trump administration almost immediately declared their intent to appeal. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan cited decades of legal precedent in her written opinion, including a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found a similar attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was unlawful because commissioners could be removed only for cause, not at the president's whim. She said her ruling would uphold 'clearly established law that has been enacted by a coequal branch of government, reaffirmed by another coequal branch, and acquiesced to by thirteen executives over the course of ninety years.' Trump fired the commission's two Democratic members in March. The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats typically include three members of the president's party and two from the opposing party. Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter said they'd been dismissed illegally and immediately promised to sue. Bedoya later submitted his resignation in June. Slaughter has four years left in her term as commissioner. 'As the Court recognized today, the law is clear, and I look forward to getting back to work,' Slaughter said in a statement Thursday. During a May court hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., plaintiffs' attorneys warned against granting the president 'absolute removal power over any executive officer,' saying it would effectively eliminate an important check on his power. 'That has never been the case in this country,' said attorney Aaron Crowell. 'That's not the law. That has never been the law.' But attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the FTC's role has expanded since the 1930s, and as such, its members should answer directly to the president. 'The president should be able to remove someone who is actively blocking his policies, for example,' Department of Justice attorney Emily Hall said during the hearing. AliKhan, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, noted the long line of presidents before Trump who didn't try to push the limits. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve seven-year terms that are staggered to prevent multiple vacancies at once. They can be fired for displaying specific bad behaviors, including inefficiency, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office. Trump told Bedoya and Slaughter that he was dismissing them because their service on the commission was inconsistent with his administration's priorities, according to the lawsuit. In its 1935 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president couldn't fire leaders of independent agencies without cause. Otherwise, the agencies would become more political and less independent. While that restriction was eroded in a subsequent decision that came in 2020, it has largely remained in place. The case, known as Humphrey's Executor has been central to a number of court challenges against the Trump administration's personnel moves targeting boards and government executives. The legal fight over the firings could have consequences for other independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, an institution that has long sought to protect its independence. Economists and financial markets broadly support an independent Fed because they worry a politicized version would be more reluctant to take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates. Plaintiffs argue that a politicized FTC could also favor powerful corporations while driving up prices for consumers. Attorney Amit Agarwal said the case isn't just about his clients keeping their jobs. He said it's about protecting 'the will of the American people' and their right to have independent agencies working on their behalf. 'America is already suffering from an excess of executive power, and the last thing we need is to hand vast new powers to the president over Congress's explicit and longstanding objection,' Agarwal said in a statement responding to the ruling, adding that 'if Trump wants even more power, he should ask the people's elected representatives in Congress, not unelected and politically unaccountable courts.'
Al Arabiya
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Arabiya
Trump's firing of 2 democrats on the federal trade commission was unconstitutional, judge rules
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump illegally fired two Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year in his efforts to exert control over independent agencies across the government. One of the commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya, resigned after suing to challenge the firings. The other plaintiff, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, can now resume her duties as commissioner because Trump lacks the constitutional authority to remove her, the judge ruled Thursday. Attorneys for the Trump administration almost immediately declared their intent to appeal. US District Judge Loren AliKhan cited decades of legal precedent in her written opinion, including a 1935 US Supreme Court decision that found a similar attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was unlawful because commissioners could be removed only for cause, not at the president's whim. She said her ruling would uphold clearly established law that has been enacted by a coequal branch of government, reaffirmed by another coequal branch, and acquiesced to by thirteen executives over the course of ninety years. Trump fired the commission's two Democratic members in March. The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats typically include three members of the president's party and two from the opposing party. Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter said they'd been dismissed illegally and immediately promised to sue. Bedoya later submitted his resignation in June. Slaughter has four years left in her term as commissioner. 'As the Court recognized today, the law is clear and I look forward to getting back to work,' Slaughter said in a statement Thursday. During a May court hearing in federal court in Washington D.C., plaintiffs' attorneys warned against granting the president absolute removal power over any executive officer, saying it would effectively eliminate an important check on his power. 'That has never been the case in this country,' said attorney Aaron Crowell. 'That's not the law. That has never been the law.' But attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the FTC's role has expanded since the 1930s and as such, its members should answer directly to the president. 'The president should be able to remove someone who is actively blocking his policies, for example,' Department of Justice attorney Emily Hall said during the hearing. AliKhan, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, noted the long line of presidents before Trump who didn't try to push the limits. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve seven-year terms that are staggered to prevent multiple vacancies at once. They can be fired for displaying specific bad behaviors including inefficiency, neglect of duty, and malfeasance in office. Trump told Bedoya and Slaughter that he was dismissing them because their service on the commission was inconsistent with his administration's priorities, according to the lawsuit. In its 1935 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president couldn't fire leaders of independent agencies without cause. Otherwise, the agencies would become more political and less independent. While that restriction was eroded in a subsequent decision that came in 2020, it has largely remained in place. The case, known as Humphreys Executor, has been central to a number of court challenges against the Trump administration's personnel moves targeting boards and government executives. The legal fight over the firings could have consequences for other independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, an institution that has long sought to protect its independence. Economists and financial markets broadly support an independent Fed because they worry a politicized version would be more reluctant to take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates. Plaintiffs argue that a politicized FTC could also favor powerful corporations while driving up prices for consumers. Attorney Amit Agarwal said the case isn't just about his clients keeping their jobs. He said it's about protecting the will of the American people and their right to have independent agencies working on their behalf. 'America is already suffering from an excess of executive power and the last thing we need is to hand vast new powers to the president over Congress's explicit and longstanding objection,' Agarwal said in a statement responding to the ruling, adding that if Trump wants even more power, he should ask the people's elected representatives in Congress, not unelected and politically unaccountable courts.
Associated Press
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Trump's firing of 2 Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission was unconstitutional, judge rules
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump illegally fired two Democrats on the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year in his efforts to exert control over independent agencies across the government. One of the commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya, resigned after suing to challenge the firings. The other plaintiff, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, can now resume her duties as commissioner because Trump lacks the constitutional authority to remove her, the judge ruled Thursday. Attorneys for the Trump administration almost immediately declared their intent to appeal. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan cited decades of legal precedent in her written opinion, including a 1935 U.S. Supreme Court decision that found a similar attempt by President Franklin D. Roosevelt was unlawful because commissioners could be removed only for cause, not at the president's whim. She said her ruling would uphold 'clearly established law that has been enacted by a coequal branch of government, reaffirmed by another coequal branch, and acquiesced to by thirteen executives over the course of ninety years.' Trump fired the commission's two Democratic members in March. The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats typically include three members of the president's party and two from the opposing party. Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter said they'd been dismissed illegally and immediately promised to sue. Bedoya later submitted his resignation in June. Slaughter has four years left in her term as commissioner. 'As the Court recognized today, the law is clear, and I look forward to getting back to work,' Slaughter said in a statement Thursday. During a May court hearing in federal court in Washington, D.C., plaintiffs' attorneys warned against granting the president 'absolute removal power over any executive officer,' saying it would effectively eliminate an important check on his power. 'That has never been the case in this country,' said attorney Aaron Crowell. 'That's not the law. That has never been the law.' But attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the FTC's role has expanded since the 1930s, and as such, its members should answer directly to the president. 'The president should be able to remove someone who is actively blocking his policies, for example,' Department of Justice attorney Emily Hall said during the hearing. AliKhan, who was nominated to the federal bench by President Joe Biden in 2023, noted the long line of presidents before Trump who didn't try to push the limits. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve seven-year terms that are staggered to prevent multiple vacancies at once. They can be fired for displaying specific bad behaviors, including inefficiency, neglect of duty and malfeasance in office. Trump told Bedoya and Slaughter that he was dismissing them because their service on the commission was inconsistent with his administration's priorities, according to the lawsuit. In its 1935 decision, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president couldn't fire leaders of independent agencies without cause. Otherwise, the agencies would become more political and less independent. While that restriction was eroded in a subsequent decision that came in 2020, it has largely remained in place. The case, known as Humphrey's Executor has been central to a number of court challenges against the Trump administration's personnel moves targeting boards and government executives. The legal fight over the firings could have consequences for other independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve, an institution that has long sought to protect its independence. Economists and financial markets broadly support an independent Fed because they worry a politicized version would be more reluctant to take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates. Plaintiffs argue that a politicized FTC could also favor powerful corporations while driving up prices for consumers. Attorney Amit Agarwal said the case isn't just about his clients keeping their jobs. He said it's about protecting 'the will of the American people' and their right to have independent agencies working on their behalf. 'America is already suffering from an excess of executive power, and the last thing we need is to hand vast new powers to the president over Congress's explicit and longstanding objection,' Agarwal said in a statement responding to the ruling, adding that 'if Trump wants even more power, he should ask the people's elected representatives in Congress, not unelected and politically unaccountable courts.'
