Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 06/29/2026 4:41:22 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court strengthened President Trump’s control over independent agencies in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, overruling 91 years of precedent that allowed Congress to insulate certain executive branch officials with firing protections.
In an expansion of presidential power, the ruling gives Trump the right to sack Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee who took center stage in his quest to set aside constraints on his removal authority.
It formally overturns the high court’s 1935 landmark decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which laid the groundwork for certain agencies across the executive branch to enjoy a degree of independence from the White House. These agencies regulate vast swaths of American life, including labor disputes, federal employee rights, workplace discrimination, credit unions, product recalls, plane accidents and more.
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
Beyond the FTC, the decision stands to impact roughly two dozen multimember agencies across the government, allowing a president to install appointees who fit his political mold.
“The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him,” their dissent continued. “In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty.”
Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, a practice the justices reserve for when they want to emphasize their strong disagreements in a case.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
"Independent" of what?
Accountability?
If a ‘Wise Latina’ reads her dissent aloud from the bench, and no one is there to hear it, does she make a sound? ;)
WINNING! Thank you, ONCE AGAIN, President Trump! MAGA!
Winning!
My take on this is that the New Deal administrative state had a critical flaw, in the eyes of the FDR administration.
That was without building some new mechanism to shield the institutions that they had either created or imbued with previously unimagined power, the American people could simply elect new representatives, who could undo all of their works.
The solution was a novel “fourth branch”, of “independent” agencies, with insulation from the supposed meddling of mere politicians. Of course, it is and was the American voter they sought protection from. That’s why the professional class are howling like scalded dogs: this is a crack in the foundation that could lead to a restoration of the separation of powers envisioned by the Constitution, and subject the permanent bureaucracy to the political will of the American people.
In their eyes, that’s a disaster.
Did the left say a word when Obama famously claimed how great “the stroke of a pen” was as he overturned myriad regulations & procedures, many of them in place from the 1930s I’m sure. Such lying hypocrites!
Pyrrhic victory without election reform (Trump lost on the mail-in ballots case).
If the Democrats cheat their way in 2026-2028 because of mail-in fraud, being able to fire government workers is moot. The Democrats won’t fire a soul.
It’s a shame Congress is too timid to us the power given to it by the elections clause to override bad state laws.
ChatGTP
Congress designed the Federal Reserve to be independent.
The Federal Reserve was created by Congress in 1913 with long, staggered terms for its governors (14 years). The idea was to insulate monetary policy from day-to-day political pressure.
The President appoints—but does not freely remove—Fed governors.
The President nominates members of the Board of Governors, and the United States Senate confirms them. Once confirmed, they do not simply serve at the President’s pleasure.
Today’s ruling held that protection still exists.
In the case involving Lisa Cook, the Court ruled 5-4 that the President could not remove her the way he attempted to. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the Federal Reserve occupies a unique constitutional and historical position and that Congress provided statutory protections for governors.
The Court distinguished the Fed from other agencies.
In a separate decision issued the same day, the Court greatly expanded presidential authority to remove leaders of many independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. But it specifically treated the Federal Reserve differently because of its longstanding independence and the importance of insulating monetary policy from politics.
Is the Fed completely beyond presidential control?
No.
A President still has significant influence by:
Nominating new governors when vacancies occur.
Choosing (subject to Senate confirmation) the Chair and Vice Chair from among the governors.
Influencing policy over time through appointments.
However, a President cannot simply fire existing governors because of disagreements over interest rates or monetary policy, according to today’s decision.
The practical result is that today’s rulings create two different rules:
Most independent agencies: the President now has broader removal authority.
The Federal Reserve: the Court preserved its special statutory protections and independence, making it a notable exception.
This distinction reflects the Court’s view that maintaining an independent central bank helps protect monetary policy from short-term political pressures, regardless of which party controls the White House.
How does this square with not being able to fire anyone at the FED? The court can’t even follow their own decision, released on the same day 😂
Makes no sense. It’s not the role of the judiciary to even care if good monetary policy is the result of an agency being independent. SCOTUS is arguing against itself. I have a hard time believing the intent of the founders was to let the courts will be the final say on everything.
Trump didn’t lose, you’re as bad as the “Shill”. Elections are the purview of the states and as long as the postmark beats the deadline it should count. SCOTUS rules correctly, whether we like it or not.
How accountable is the Sea Eye Eh?
“How does this square with not being able to fire anyone at the FED? “
The situation at The Fed involves Black Privilege....
Let the mass firings begin
L
“My take on this is that the New Deal administrative state had a critical flaw, in the eyes of the FDR administration.
That was without building some new mechanism to shield the institutions that they had either created or imbued with previously unimagined power, the American people could simply elect new representatives, who could undo all of their works.
The solution was a novel “fourth branch”, of “independent” agencies, with insulation from the supposed meddling of mere politicians. Of course, it is and was the American voter they sought protection from. That’s why the professional class are howling like scalded dogs: this is a crack in the foundation that could lead to a restoration of the separation of powers envisioned by the Constitution, and subject the permanent bureaucracy to the political will of the American people.
In their eyes, that’s a disaster.”
__________________________________________________________
The FDR programs of the New Deal are what kept America from following the path of national socialism or communism during the 1930’s. We could have easily been like Spain or Italy, or even Germany with the American Bund.
It’s been a price well worth paying from that perspective.
“Trump didn’t lose, you’re as bad as the “Shill”. Elections are the purview of the states and as long as the postmark beats the deadline it should count. SCOTUS rules correctly, whether we like it or not.”
____________________________________________________________
Trump lost only on his effort to assume election oversight powers that the Constitution specifically reserves to the states. There are no enumerated federal powers over elections, although Article II gives Congress the authority to pass legislation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.