By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan who accused the court of overriding Congress to grant the president sweeping new powers over independent agencies. This decision signals the conservative majority’s potential willingness to overturn a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removals, specifically Humphrey’s Executor. The court’s actions have repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thus shifting control of key regulatory agencies to the president. Arguments over the matter are expected in December, where the court will determine whether Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda.
Read the original article here
Elena Kagan Warns Supreme Court “Overriding” Congress to Give Trump a Win
The situation, as Justice Elena Kagan points out, is becoming increasingly concerning. The Supreme Court seems to be consistently siding with Donald Trump, even when it means effectively overriding the will of Congress. It’s a pattern emerging, where the court’s decisions appear to favor the former president, regardless of the established legal precedents or the legislative intent. This trend suggests a significant shift in power dynamics, with the court seemingly willing to grant Trump sweeping authority, particularly over independent agencies. This is happening in ways that bypass normal legal processes and are increasingly concerning to legal scholars.
The core of the issue is the court’s willingness to overturn, or at least cast serious doubt on, long-standing legal precedents. The court’s decision to allow Trump to fire an FTC member, while simultaneously considering whether to overturn the landmark Humphrey’s Executor ruling from 1935, is a prime example. This ruling limited the president’s power to remove officials from independent agencies. The court’s conservative majority, without offering any explanation, has seemingly signaled its intent to change the rules in a way that benefits Trump. This allows for the shifting of control of key regulatory agencies, a move that concentrates more power in the executive branch, much like a “unitary executive theory” where the president can do whatever he wants.
This raises serious questions about the court’s role and its adherence to the principles of checks and balances. The court is meant to be a check on executive power, not an enabler. Justice Kagan, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, have voiced their dissent, emphasizing that the court is actively working against Congress’s explicit prohibitions, fundamentally altering the balance of power. This is not a matter of simple disagreement; it’s a fundamental challenge to the separation of powers. The concern is that this sets a precedent that could be exploited by any future president, essentially giving them unchecked authority over the bureaucracy.
The implications of these decisions extend far beyond the specific cases at hand. The court’s actions are not only allowing Trump to expand his power, but they are also undermining the public’s trust in the court as an impartial arbiter of the law. As the court increasingly appears to be operating according to political rather than legal considerations, the entire system of governance is destabilized. A key concern here is that the court is undermining the democratic process, a process in which the people vote, and the elected officials create laws.
The lack of transparency from the court, particularly the frequent use of the emergency docket without providing explanations, further exacerbates the problem. This absence of justification creates a sense of arbitrariness and makes it difficult to understand the court’s reasoning. This lack of accountability fuels speculation and distrust, making it seem that the court is making decisions based on political preferences rather than the law. Many observers are pointing out that this isn’t about the law anymore, but about the agenda.
This situation has led to a sense of despair and a feeling that the rules are no longer being followed. There are arguments that this is a crisis of governance, and that the court’s actions are an attack on the foundations of American democracy. This trend could lead to the erosion of the rule of law and the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual or party.
The concern is that what the court is doing is setting a precedent that will allow for unprecedented power grabs and an attack on the very fabric of America’s foundational principles. The actions of the Supreme Court are setting a very dangerous precedent, and a radical shift in the balance of powers.