Supreme Court Supports Trump in Defining Executive Authority

The Supreme Court recently utilized its emergency docket to effectively overturn a key precedent that limited presidential authority. This precedent, stemming from the New Deal era and known as Humphrey’s Executor, upheld the constitutionality of independent regulatory agencies.

While unexpected to some, the court’s decision aligns logically with ongoing debates over executive power and agency independence.

The cases at hand—Trump v. Wilcox and Harris v. Bessent—center on whether the president can remove members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board without cause. Both agencies were established by Congress as independent entities, raising the question of whether Congress’s authority to create such bodies stands or if the unitary executive theory demands full presidential control.

Following rulings by lower courts that deemed the dismissals unlawful and ordered the reinstatement of agency officials, the Supreme Court reversed course, siding with the president.

Although there are numerous pressing concerns regarding constitutional law today, those apprehensive about the court’s handling of the Trump administration’s broader actions may find this decision less alarming.

In its emergency order, the court determined that the president was likely to succeed in his claim to unitary executive authority. It also concluded that the administration was unfairly prejudiced by allowing the officials to retain their positions during litigation, and that this decision would not threaten the Federal Reserve’s independence.

These four findings attracted a strong dissent from Justice Elena Kagan. Nonetheless, in this specific context, each aspect of the ruling can be reasonably defended.