The conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” blueprint calls the 1935 Supreme Court precedent “ripe for revisiting — and probably sooner than later.”
Coming soon.
The court will hold a hearing on Monday on whether to overturn the precedent, Humphrey Enforcer v. United States, which protects independent agencies from presidential interference. The Trump administration has prioritized dismantling that independence, and the Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority has been helping him achieve that goal at several agencies whose work affects key aspects of American life.
Monday’s case, titled Trump v. Slaughter, is the court’s latest chance to empower the Republican president even as its rulings will outlast Donald Trump
– Unless and until a future high court majority overturns everything it does in an upcoming ruling.
The 1935 precedent was named after a lawsuit brought by the estate of William Humphrey. He is a member of the Federal Trade Commission, a five-member consumer protection agency whose members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners serve across governments; no more than three members may be from the same political party. In 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to fire Commissioner Humphrey before his term ended, and his executors sued over his salary from the time Roosevelt claimed he was fired until Humphrey’s death in 1934.
The high court sided with Humphrey while emphasizing the importance of the agency’s independence. The court noted that the law establishing the FTC provides that the president can remove the commissioner for “inefficiency, dereliction of duty, or dereliction of duty,” and that the government made no such accusation against Humphrey. “The commission is supposed to be nonpartisan; by the very nature of its duties, it must act with complete impartiality,” the court said.
Fast forward a century later, and Trump is trying to fire the same agency’s Democratic commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, without cause. A federal judge blocked the move, citing precedent in the Humphrey case, and an appeals panel also blocked it over objections from Trump appointees.
With Monday’s hearing in Washington looming, the high court’s partisan divide is also evident. When it agreed in September to consider the government’s appeal, the Republican-appointed majority also agreed to the government’s request, temporarily authorizing Slaughter’s firing while the proceedings continued. The three Democratic appointees to the Supreme Court dissented.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the trio, noted that under current precedent, Trump cannot fire the commissioner without cause. “Achieving a different result would require reversing the rules set out in Humphrey’s: This requires overturning, not accepting, Congressional judgment on agency design,” she wrote.
“Most people are probably eager to take this action,” she wrote, adding, “Before the action is completed, Humphrey’s control, and prevent a majority from giving the president unlimited recall powers, Congress rejected him. “
Monday’s hearing may shed light on how much power the court is prepared to give Trump, though we won’t know for sure until the court rules, expected in early July.
subscription Deadline: Legal Communications Get expert analysis of the week’s top legal stories, including the latest developments from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
The post Republican-controlled Supreme Court considers desire to approve Plan 2025 appeared first on MS NOW.
This article was originally published on ms.now
