The Department of Justice is preparing to challenge a longstanding Supreme Court precedent that has shielded independent federal agencies from presidential control for nearly a century.
At a Glance
- DOJ aims to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling
- The move could expand executive influence over independent agencies
- Agencies like FTC, NLRB, and CPSC could lose officer tenure protections
- DOJ cites 2010 Supreme Court decision as basis for challenge
- Critics argue the change could undermine consumer and worker protections
DOJ’s Bold Move to Reshape Federal Agency Independence
In a significant development, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has signaled its intention to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling. This landmark decision has long been the cornerstone of federal agency independence, protecting principal officers from arbitrary removal by the President. The DOJ’s Acting Solicitor General, Sarah Harris, communicated this stance in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dick Durbin, marking a potential sea change in the relationship between the executive branch and independent agencies.
The DOJ’s new position asserts that the President should have the power to directly terminate officers at agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This move aligns with the Trump administration’s efforts to consolidate power within the executive branch, potentially reshaping the landscape of federal governance.
Constitutional Concerns and Legal Precedents
At the heart of the DOJ’s argument is the claim that statutory tenure protections for members of these agencies are unconstitutional. The department cites the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Free Enterprise Fund, which found similar removal protections unconstitutional for certain officers. This legal rationale suggests a broader interpretation of executive authority over independent regulatory bodies.
The DOJ’s stance represents a significant shift from previous administrations’ interpretations of the Constitution’s separation of powers. By challenging the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, the department is essentially arguing that the president’s ability to control executive agencies should not be limited by Congress through statutory protections for agency officers.
Implications for Federal Agencies and Governance
If the Supreme Court were to side with the DOJ’s position, it could lead to a substantial expansion of presidential power over independent agencies. This change would potentially allow sitting presidents to remove agency heads more easily, aligning agency policies more closely with executive branch priorities. Critics, including Senator Dick Durbin, have expressed concerns that such a move could undermine laws designed to protect consumers and workers.
The agencies at the center of this legal debate, including the NLRB, CPSC, and FTC, have not yet commented on the DOJ’s new position. Their silence underscores the gravity of the situation and the potential for significant changes in how these agencies operate and maintain their independence from political pressures.
As the legal community awaits the DOJ’s formal request to the Supreme Court, the implications of this potential shift in federal agency governance continue to be a subject of intense debate among lawmakers, legal scholars, and public policy experts. The outcome of this challenge could reshape the balance of power in Washington for generations to come.
