The U.S. 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 within the government. The cases, Slaughter v. Trump and Trump v. Cook, involve the removal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, respectively. Legal experts indicate that the two cases present different legal questions regarding presidential removal power.
In Slaughter, the Trump administration challenges statutory restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners, arguing that these limits violate Article II of the Constitution. In contrast, the Cook case focuses on whether Trump met the Federal Reserve Act's requirement for 'for cause' removal, with Trump asserting that Cook's alleged misconduct justified her dismissal.
Legal scholars, including Catholic University law professor Joel Alicea, note that the administration's arguments in the two cases differ significantly. The administration's approach in Slaughter emphasizes a constitutional argument against the FTC Act's removal limits, while it refrains from making a similar argument in the Cook case.
The Supreme Court recently allowed removals involving officials from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board to proceed while litigation continues. However, the Court indicated that its decision would not necessarily affect the tenure protections for Federal Reserve Board members, citing the unique structure and historical context of the Federal Reserve.
Many legal experts, including Erin Hawley from Lex Politica, anticipate the Court may be more receptive to the administration's arguments in Slaughter than in Cook, where the Federal Reserve's independence may be a significant factor. A bipartisan group of former Federal Reserve chairs and economists has expressed concern that increased presidential control over Federal Reserve governors could threaten the central bank's independence and lead to economic instability.
The Slaughter case also tests the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president has control over executive officials. The justices will consider whether to overrule 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 warn that a ruling favoring Trump in Slaughter could undermine the independence of agencies designed to operate free from political pressure. Constitutional law expert Robert McWhirter cautions that supporters of broader presidential power should consider the implications for future administrations. Meanwhile, advocates for increased presidential authority argue that the president should be able to direct independent agencies, as these officials are not accountable to voters.