The Supreme Court is set to hear two significant cases regarding President Donald Trump's authority to remove federal officials, which could impact the balance of power in the U.S. government. The cases, Slaughter v. Trump and Trump v. Cook, involve the firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, respectively. Legal experts note that while both cases address presidential removal power, they present different legal questions.
In Slaughter, the Trump administration challenges statutory restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners, arguing that such limits violate Article II of the Constitution. Conversely, in Cook, the question revolves around whether Trump met the Federal Reserve Act's requirement for a 'for cause' removal, with Trump citing alleged misconduct by Cook.
Catholic University of America law professor Joel Alicea highlighted differences in the administration's legal strategies for each case. In Slaughter, the administration argues that the president should have the authority to fire FTC commissioners without statutory limitations. In contrast, the argument in Cook does not raise constitutional issues, reflecting the distinct constitutional considerations associated with the Federal Reserve.
The Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. Wilcox allowed removals of officials from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board to proceed while litigation continues, but it did not challenge the Federal Reserve Board's tenure protections.
Many legal experts expect the Court to be more favorable to the administration's arguments in Slaughter than in Cook, where the Federal Reserve's independence may play a significant role. A bipartisan group of former Federal Reserve chairs and economists has expressed concern that increased presidential control over Federal Reserve governors could threaten central bank independence and economic stability.
The Slaughter case tests the unitary executive theory, which posits that Article II grants the president control over executive officials. The justices will consider whether to overturn or narrow the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which upheld limits on the president's removal authority.
Critics of expanding presidential removal power caution that a ruling in favor of Trump could undermine the independence of agencies designed to operate free from political influence. Constitutional law expert Robert McWhirter emphasized the importance of independent boards in safeguarding decisions from partisan politics, while supporters of broader presidential power argue that the president should have the authority to direct independent agencies due to their lack of electoral accountability.