A legal battle is brewing over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, which has been instrumental in shaping the modern U.S. government. The decision, established in 1935, prohibits presidents from firing appointed leaders of federal agencies without cause, ensuring the independence of these agencies.
Conservative legal theorists have long contested this decision, arguing that the Constitution grants the president significant power, including the authority to dismiss agency leaders at will. The current Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, has shown some alignment with this view.
The case of Humphrey's Executor originated when President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought the resignation of William Humphrey, a Republican member of Congress appointed to the Federal Trade Commission. When Humphrey refused to resign, Roosevelt fired him, leading to a legal battle that resulted in the Supreme Court upholding the independence of federal agencies.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have shown a trend towards limiting laws that restrict the president's removal power. In a 2020 ruling, the court upheld Trump's firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, signaling a shift towards a broader view of presidential authority.
The Trump administration is currently embroiled in a legal dispute over the firing of agency heads, with implications for the future independence of federal agencies. The outcome of these legal battles could have far-reaching consequences, potentially affecting agencies that regulate labor relations, consumer protection, and nuclear energy use.
While the Federal Reserve's independence in setting monetary policy has not been directly threatened, a decision overturning Humphrey's Executor could have implications for its autonomy. The administration's stance on federal agency independence has raised concerns about the potential politicization of regulatory bodies.
The ongoing legal challenges and debates surrounding the independence of federal agencies highlight the complex interplay between presidential power, agency autonomy, and constitutional principles.
