By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could overturn the 90-year-old precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that Congress could limit a president’s power to remove executive branch officials. The justices are debating whether President Trump’s firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner was constitutional and if upholding it would violate the separation of powers. If the court sides with the Trump administration, it could weaken the power of independent agencies, sparking concerns about the balance of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Arguments have focused on whether the president should have the authority to oversee these agencies, and whether such agencies, by their very nature, are designed to operate independent of presidential oversight. The outcome could reshape the structure of the government and the role of independent agencies.
Read the original article here
Sonia Sotomayor’s concern is that overturning *Humphrey’s Executor* would significantly empower a president, effectively granting them near absolute control. The core issue revolves around the independence of various commissions and boards within the executive branch. These agencies, designed to be insulated from political pressure to provide expert and nonpartisan decisions, could be vulnerable if the President can simply fire and replace their members at will. This essentially means the President can pack these crucial bodies with loyalists who share their ideological viewpoints, potentially undermining the integrity and impartiality of vital governmental functions.
The potential ramifications of such a shift are considerable. If the President gains the unrestricted power to remove officials from these supposedly independent entities, it could lead to the politicization of areas that should be based on expertise, like economic policy, transportation, or even scientific research. As Jackson pointed out, replacing experts with individuals driven by loyalty rather than competence would not be in the best interest of the citizens. The idea is that an independent commission staffed with career specialists and experts makes decisions in the best interest of the people. This is in direct contrast with appointing loyalists to positions, regardless of their credentials. This could erode public trust and undermine the very foundation of the government’s ability to operate effectively and fairly.
One of the central arguments against overturning the precedent established by *Humphrey’s Executor* is that it undermines the separation of powers. By allowing the President to dictate the composition of supposedly independent agencies, it blurs the lines between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This goes against the core principle of checks and balances. The worry is that the President can leverage this power to assert control over the entirety of the executive branch. This kind of influence is exactly the definition of autocracy and the “unitary executive theory” where the president is essentially the king.
The concern extends beyond any single individual. The long-term implications are equally, if not more, alarming. The fear is that the conservative-leaning majority on the Supreme Court is not considering Trump, but future presidents. If a president is given absolute control, then any future president would wield similar power, regardless of their political affiliation. This potential shift creates a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the American democracy for decades to come, especially if Congress fails to respond to any of the actions.
The implications for crucial regulatory bodies are also concerning. Overturning *Humphrey’s Executor* could empower a president to replace the experts in agencies responsible for safety. This directly impacts the safety of all citizens as the President could fill those positions with loyalists that would undermine those safety measures. This also applies to agencies such as the Federal Reserve, the SEC, or the Federal Aviation Administration.
The concern here is a creeping authoritarianism, which is why it’s so important to recognize how dangerous this decision would be. If a president can control all of the agencies, what limits exist on the President? Even worse is the concern that the institutions meant to protect democracy are eroding the system.
In essence, the argument boils down to this: By granting the President the power to control independent agencies, the Supreme Court could be inadvertently laying the groundwork for a presidency with unchecked authority. And that, as Justice Sotomayor suggests, would be a significant step toward absolute power. This is not about one election, but setting a precedent that will impact all future elections.