Topline
The Supreme Court considered Monday whether to give President Donald Trump increased power to fire federal officials, hearing oral arguments in a landmark case on the president’s control over independent board members, and the court’s conservative-leaning justices suggested they were willing to overturn a 90-year-old precedent and give Trump more power.
President Donald Trump receives the FIFA Peace Prize at John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on December 5 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images
Key Facts
The Court heard oral arguments Monday in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that challenges Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and more broadly asks the court to reconsider its precedent in the 1935 ruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
In Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court ruled presidents can only fire federal executives who serve on independent boards—like the Federal Trade Commission—for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and do not serve at the pleasure of the president.
Trump has repeatedly challenged that precedent in his second term, firing Slaughter and numerous other independent board members at the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission, among others.
The court will decide whether to keep the Humphrey’s Executor precedent and restrict Trump’s ability to fire officials, or overturn it and give Trump more authority.
Multiple conservative-leaning justices suggested during oral arguments Monday they were willing to strike down Humphrey’s Executor, criticizing the precedent as an outdated “husk.”
Trump has also asked the Supreme Court to rule that presidents can fire officials without court interference, meaning if Trump fires someone in the future, it could not be challenged in court and the president’s decisions would have to stand.
How Will The Justices Rule?
It remains to be seen how the court will rule, but justices in the court’s 6-3 conservative majority suggested they were open to siding with Trump. Justices including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, with Gorsuch suggesting the case was “poorly reasoned” and Roberts describing it as a “dried husk of whatever people used to think it was” that “has nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh also criticized a suggestion by Slaughter’s attorney that striking down the precedent could cause “chaos” and weaken federal agencies, telling attorney Amit Agarwal, “I don’t think that’s what would happen if you lost.” Justices did suggest they were hesitant to issue a sweeping opinion that could have ramifications past board members on independent commissions like the FTC, however, with Justice Samuel Alito asking how the court could craft a ruling that overturns Humphrey’s Executor but wouldn’t implicate other agenices. Kavanaugh also expressed concern about Trump’s argument that presidential appointments shouldn’t be subject to judicial scrutiny, saying he had “some real doubts about that argument” and thought it could be an “end run” around any exceptions that limit the president’s firing power.