Trump v. WilcoxA case now pending in the Supreme Court “Record“Ask if several federal agencies that are supposed to enjoy a certain degree of independence of the president must be stripped of that independence.
Wilcox It is the last in cases of the Supreme Court that involve what is known as the “Unit Executive Theory “That, in its strongest form, it would give the presidents legal control in each federal work that is not part of the Congress or the Judiciary. And this case is not particularly seen for the defenders of the agency’s independence.
In previous executive cases, the republican majority of the court have shown that they are absolutely committed to an expansive vision of presidential power, including the power to set the officials who are supposed to be independent of political pressure.
Nine decades ago, in Humphrey executor v. USA (1935), the Supreme Court exceeded a law that protected the five commissioners of the Federal Commerce Commission (FTC) of being fired for the “inefficiency, negligence of duty or embezzlement in office.” As the Court explained, the members of the FTC “are called to exercise the trained judgment of an expert body”, which brings technocratic knowledge to their decisions, even if their expert judgments depart from the ideas that are fashionable.
Trusting this authority, Congress has created multiple similar agencies: the The most important of which is the Federal ReserveThat, like central banks in other successful nations, it is assumed that it establishes interest rates based on the expert economic trial and not based on what will benefit the acting president. The consequence of stripping the Fed of this sequence would be severe. In 1971, the president of the FED, Arthur Burns, succumbed to the pressure of President Richard Nixon for juice of the economy that entered the Nixon re -election career. Burns’ actions are often blamed for Years of “Stafflation” – Slow economic growth and high inflation – That followed.
It is difficult to exaggerate the current Disdain of republican judges by Humphrey executoror for the very idea that federal agencies can act independently of the president. Starting at least as far as Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accountant Board (2010), the Court begins to limit the power of Congress to protect government officials from presidential control. This process accelerated quickly Once Trump began to rebuild the judiciary.
He Unit Executive The theory even played a leading role in Trump v. USA (2024)The decision of the Supreme Court that states that Trump can use the powers of the Presidency to commit crimes, and the court depends on this theory to establish that Trump has total control over the Department of Justice, even if he orders prosecutors.
Now, Wilcox It refers to two federal officials, one of whom is at the National Board of Labor Relations and another that sits at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), who was fired by Trump despite federal laws that establish President Canot Fire Fire at will. Trump’s attempt to take advantage of total control over the MSPB is particularly consistent, in the probable event that is successful, because the MSPB is the agency that is It is supposed to protect civil officials from the motivated political dismissal. If Trump wins the power to fire MSPB members, he could potentially unravel the protections of civil service and anti -corruption reforms that Began in the administration of Chester A. Arthur.
More widely, Wilcox Gives the republican majority of the court a vehicle to cancel Humphrey executor In its entirety, which ends potential independence for all federal agencies, including Fed.
Given the previous executive decisions of the Court Unit, there are few reasons to expect any significant improvement of Humphrey executor It can survive. And yet, while we contemplate the chaos that Trump has created in less than three months in office, the Changing rates constantlyHe Contempt for judicial ordersThe decision since then reverse to Fund a prison with thousands of ISIS fighters – It is at least theoretically possible that at least some of the Republicans of the Court wonder if now it is really the time to expand the president’s powers and give it total control over the Federal Reserve.
The unit executive explained
The Constitution is a vague document of Notatry. Prevents the police from doing “Irrazable” searchesWithout defining that term. Protect against “Excessive “fines and” cruel and unusual punishments“Without telling us what these terms mean either. A disposition of the Constitution prohibits states from accelerating”The privileges or immunity of the citizens of the United States. “Not even the Supreme Court You have some idea of what that means.
For this reason, much of The constitutional law of the United States is no more than the storytelling. At the beginning of the 20th century, when the court was dominated by conservatives of the industrial age, the judges told a story about how unclear constitutional language prohibits the State from denying someone “Freedom … without due legal process“He prohibited labor protections as a minimum wage. In the 1970s, when the most liberal judges dominated the Court, the Court is a different story about how those same vague words Guarantee a right to abortion. In boats, only these stories, the power during the time that most judges believed.
The unit executive arises from a similar well. Republican judges derive from a provision of the Constitution that establishes that “The Executive Power will be acquired in a president of the United States of America.. “As Judge Antonin Scalia summarized this provision in his opinion Morrison v. Olson (1988), is “It does not mean some of the Executive Power, but all of the Executive Power“The president maintains it.
Consequently, fans of the executive theory of the Unit argue that the president must have the power to hire and fire any government official who promotes the power to be “executive” in nature.
The problem with this theory is that the word “executive” is much less well defined than the Republican judges claim that. In MorrisonFor example, Scalia argued that the power to bring criminal prosecutions is a “executive function par excellence” that must be under the total control of the president. And the six republican judges adopted this point of view in his Triumph Immunity decision – It is the reason why Triumph He concluded that the president can order the Department of Justice to process his enemies, and that nothing can be done to the President later.
But the historical evidence of Scalia’s statement about prosecutors is thoroughly weak. During much of early American history, the prosecutions were Typically initiated by private lawyers Who sought accusations of great jurors. The judges also sometimes instituted prosecutions, and retain some power to do it even today. According to current law, the judges of the Federal District can Sometimes designates US intermediate lawyers.Who supervise almost all prosecutions within the jurisdiction of these judges.
Neverberness, the most important question in the Wilcox The case is not whether the executive theory of the unit can be found real in the Constitution, or if the Constitution was originally understood that prohibits independent agencies. What matters is that all Republican judges passionately create in the history that Scalia told in his Morrison Dissent, and I said so much. For example, when asked Brett Kavanaugh, in 2016, what case of the Supreme Court he wanted to cancel, he appointed, he appointed MorrisonSaying that chickens A “Put the last nail“In that decision.
It seems likely, in other words, that Republican judges use Wilcox To tell the story, they have been eager to tell for so long and explicitly cancel Humphrey executor Or grind that decision to the point that it no longer has any real strength. That could make Trump the Most powerful president in the history of the United States.
In fact, if the court comes so far as to give Trump the total control over the Fed, Trump would go to the powers that could make the agitation fall through its tariffs seem some minor swirls in the global economy.
