Trump's firings of independent agency heads put 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent in crosshair

CBS News ^ | February 17, 2025 | Melissa Quinn

[Red Badger]

Washington — President Trump's firings of the members of independent agencies and boards have prompted a string of legal fights that could set the Supreme Court up to reconsider and potentially overturn a 90-year-old decision that shields certain executive branch officials from being removed after political shifts in the White House.

[Steely Tom]

Headline is illiterate. I’m sure the article is no better.

[WeaslesRippedMyFlesh]

Gibberish.
It’s like listening to Journey backwards

[EnderWiggin1970]

"independent agency heads"

Either we have a representative government or we don't. If we have "independent agency heads" that can act contrary to the will of the officials we elect, then we don't have a representative government. We have an oligarchy ruling over slaves with a kabuki theater of "democracy."

[AnotherUnixGeek]

We currently have unelected bureaucrats who can’t be removed by the duly elected president. I have no idea how the SC will rule, but I don’t see a way for any SC that recognizes the rights of the Executive Branch to rule against Trump’s case.

[Red Badger]

When you listen to Journey backwards you hear Jimi Hendrix crying.....................

[Rastus]

Or Zappa forwards. Oh, wait.

[shelterguy]

“””When you listen to Journey backwards you hear Jimi Hendrix crying.............”””””

When you listen to Journey backwards it still sucks just as much as playing it forward.

[Carl Vehse]

SeeBS News - no need to step in it.

[usurper]

Headline is illiterate. I’m sure the article is no better.

You are correct, you saved the time that I wasted reading it.

[dblshot]

There are 3 branches of government in our constitutional system. There are no independent entities. Which brings up the question of independent prosecutors. Probably unconditional too but who wants to argue that point.

[lastchance]

My short opinion, which is worth Zero, is that the law is invalid.

[P-Marlowe]

There are no independent agencies. There are a lot of unappointed bureaucrats acting as if they answer to no one, but all agencies are under the direction and control of the executive branch.

[linMcHlp]

bkmk

[nagant]

Elections have consequences. If a bureaucrat-executive refuses to carry out his boss’s instructions then, like the rest of us, he’s gotta go.

[JesusIsLord]

Federal laws passed by Congress that created the agencies and limited the president to removing their members only for cause — in cases of neglect of duty or malfeasance.

Any such law is unconstitutional per Article II.

[TheConservator]

Well said

[TheConservator]

I predict SCOTUS rules in Trump’s favor.

[MayflowerMadam]

The article is grueling and pretty much incoherent. Had to stop reading early on.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

"The decision in Humphrey's Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people," Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion to its 2020 decision on the CFPB, which was joined by Gorsuch.

Not to mention that 30T+ of irresponsible, dishonest spending threatens a crash worse than 1929.