The Justice Department recently asked the Supreme Court for permission to let President Trump fire a Federal Trade Commissioner without cause. This move directly challenges a nearly 90-year-old ruling that protects such officials from being dismissed for political reasons.
The legal battle began when Trump tried to remove two Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Slaughter fought back, with a judge siding with her based on the 1935 ruling that limited the president’s power in these situations. In the latest court filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the FTC has more authority now than when it was created, giving Trump a stronger case for his presidential power under the Constitution.
Sauer said in his statement, “The lower courts have ruled against the President, reinstating an officer who he believes shouldn’t hold executive power.” He wants the Supreme Court to expedite the case, skipping further lower court processes.
In July, a federal judge favored Slaughter, linking back to the historical ruling that still stands. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit echoed this sentiment last week.
Currently, Slaughter remains a commissioner, as noted on the FTC’s website. The FTC is made up of five commissioners, with strict rules ensuring a balance between political parties. Slaughter and Bedoya are both Democrats, though Bedoya was originally appointed by Trump in 2018.
Historically, the FTC was established in 1914 with specific guidelines about when commissioners could be removed, which included terms like “inefficiency” or “malfeasance.” However, recent Supreme Court decisions have begun to shift the balance of power concerning independent agencies like the FTC.
In a broader context, this issue reflects an ongoing trend where the courts are redefining the authority of independent agencies. According to a study by the American Bar Association, 70% of law experts agree that reducing the independence of regulatory bodies could lead to increased political influence and potential conflicts of interest.
Social media has been buzzing about this topic as well. Many users express concern over the implications of politicizing independent agencies, while others support the idea of greater presidential control for efficiency.
Overall, this case could set significant precedents for the future of federal agencies and their independence. It’s a pivotal moment in U.S. politics, showcasing the ongoing tug-of-war over power between branches of government.
