The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to immediately reinstate the heads of two independent regulatory agencies removed by President Trump, saying the president may well have the authority to fire them. The decision, a temporary one in effect while the issue is considered by lower courts, sets the stage for a legal battle on 90-year-old protections for the independence of regulatory bodies. As is usual on emergency applications, the Supreme Court did not provide a vote breakdown. But the three justices appointed by Democratic presidents provided a sharp dissent, the Washington Post reports.
Thursday's action basically extended an administrative stay from Chief Justice John Roberts issued in April, per the AP, on the ousting of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris from the federal Merit Systems Protection Board. Trump has not acted to replace them, so the firings have left the boards—both of which deal with labor issues—without enough members to take final actions on matters before them.
- Majority reasoning: In a two-page summary, the court majority wrote that Trump can remove officials who exercise power in his place "because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president." That authority, the majority said, per the New York Times, is constrained only by "narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents."
- Dissent reasoning: Justice Elena Kagan argued that the majority was chipping away at longstanding precedent that, she wrote, "forecloses both the president's firings and the court's decision to award emergency relief." She said the president is moving "to take the law into his own hands" and that Thursday's decision amounts to an endorsement. "Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a president, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency," Kagen wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
- About the Fed: Jerome Powell's position might be a different story, the majority suggested. President Trump has expressed dissatisfaction with the Federal Reserve chair, but the ruling hinted the court might block his firing, should Trump attempt it. The plaintiffs had argued that approving the two removals might have implications for members of the Federal Reserve Board. The majority wrote, however, that that agency is "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity" with a "distinct historical tradition."
(More
Supreme Court stories.)
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
