The US Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a case that could determine whether President Donald Trump's ability to fire officials from independent agencies is constitutional. The case, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter v. US, centers on the dispute over the removal of Ms Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which was re-confirmed for a second term under Joe Biden that was set to expire in 2029.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the Humphrey's Executor precedent, established in 1938, must be overruled. The precedent states that the president requires Congress' signoff to fire an official from an independent government agency, and it needs to be "for cause". However, Mr Agarwal, arguing on behalf of Ms Slaughter, said that the constitutional text clearly delineates the boundary between the president's power and Congress' power with respect to removal.
Historical evidence suggests that significant governmental authority was vested in commissions that were not subject to plenary presidential control. The solicitor general cited this evidence, but his opponent countered that this does not change the fact that Congress has created these agencies and sets their terms.
The court is now considering whether to overturn the 1938 decision or uphold it. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the powers of independent agencies and the president's authority over them.
In a statement, Justice Sotomayor said: "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government... To take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent."
The court is also considering whether President Trump can fire officials from other independent agencies. The case has raised concerns about the balance of power between the president and Congress.
As the hearing continues, the justices will consider arguments on both sides of the issue. The outcome of this case could shape the country's understanding of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government for years to come.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the Humphrey's Executor precedent, established in 1938, must be overruled. The precedent states that the president requires Congress' signoff to fire an official from an independent government agency, and it needs to be "for cause". However, Mr Agarwal, arguing on behalf of Ms Slaughter, said that the constitutional text clearly delineates the boundary between the president's power and Congress' power with respect to removal.
Historical evidence suggests that significant governmental authority was vested in commissions that were not subject to plenary presidential control. The solicitor general cited this evidence, but his opponent countered that this does not change the fact that Congress has created these agencies and sets their terms.
The court is now considering whether to overturn the 1938 decision or uphold it. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the powers of independent agencies and the president's authority over them.
In a statement, Justice Sotomayor said: "You're asking us to destroy the structure of government... To take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent."
The court is also considering whether President Trump can fire officials from other independent agencies. The case has raised concerns about the balance of power between the president and Congress.
As the hearing continues, the justices will consider arguments on both sides of the issue. The outcome of this case could shape the country's understanding of the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government for years to come.
It's like, what's the balance here? Should Congress have total control over who runs these independent agencies or should the president have more freedom to make changes as he sees fit? I'm not sure either way, but this is definitely gonna be interesting to watch... 
I'm kinda worried that if they overturn this precedent, it could lead to some major power struggles between the branches of government. But at the same time, it's interesting to see how the justices are weighing in on historical evidence and constitutional texts. 
Maybe this case is a chance for us to really think about how we want our government to work? 
. the precedent is old, but i guess that's why they're still considering it... 
. and what even is the Humphrey's Executor precedent? sounds like a bunch of outdated rules 
.
. The solicitor general seems to be cherry-picking facts and ignoring the bigger picture. Like, what about all those commissions that were created by Congress with specific powers? 
It's not just about "Congress' idea" – it's about the balance of power in our system.
or if that would undermine the very structure of our government.
Anyway, I'm here for a more nuanced conversation and a more thoughtful approach to these issues. Let's keep pushing for change! 
. Seriously though, the implications of this case are huge. If Congress loses its ability to check and balance the president's power, we're in for a world of trouble. I'm not holding my breath waiting for Justice Sotomayor's prediction about "destroying the structure of government" but I do hope she and her fellow justices can make a decision that doesn't put us all on notice... to start packing our bags 
.