SCOTUS Kills Independent Agencies, Expands Presidential Power

Strict Scrutiny

The Supreme Court's rulings in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook significantly expand presidential power by dismantling independent agencies and allowing post-election ballot counting, sparking concerns over democrati

Key takeaways

• Overturns 90-year precedent on agency independence.

Transcript preview

Stec scrutiny is brought to you by Americans United for separation of church and state. The Trump administration's excessive Christian nationalist rhetoric is only building as we move toward the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Those most caught in the crossfire are federal workers, specifically a multi-faith group of federal employees who have filed a new lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture for violating the separation of church and state and the religious freedom promised in our Constitution. United for separation of church and state received emails from multiple USDA employees. A handful of employees reached out to say that the proselytizing Easter emails sent by Secretary of Agriculture, Brooke L. Rollins, to more than 100,000 USDA employees is an abuse of power that violates the separation of church and state promised in the First Amendment. They're absolutely right. I just have to remind you as we continue to think about the nation's 250th anniversary that the whole of religious freedom is not solely about religious pluralism about different religious sex being able to flourish in the United States. It is also a hedge against tyranny, the idea that religion provides alternative sources of values and allegiances that imbue the individual with the capacity to be skeptical when the government comes peddling its own orthodoxies. So when you think about this, it's not just about letting a million flowers bloom, it's literally about keeping limited government. in place. And the hits just keep coming from this administration and Americans United is doing their level best to keep up the fight against Christian nationalism. And if you want to help, head over to a.U.org forward slash cricket to learn more about their work and how you can get involved. Mr. Chief Justice, I please report. It's an old joke, but when I argue man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they're going to have the last word. She spoke not elegantly but with unmistakable clarity. She said, I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks. Welcome back to Strix Fruitney. Yes, it is a two episode Monday because the Supreme Court has just decided that no matter how much power they have given to the president or maybe just this president it is still never enough. We're your hosts, I'm Kate Shaw. I'm Leah Littman and Melissa is currently on a plane doing her level best to scramble here to tell John Roberts two pound sand so just wanted to give you a heads up in case she is able to make it and get into this recording. We work. We work over time. because the court makes it as difficult as possible. She's personally piloting the plane together because that's how committed. She did offer to do so. And speaking of bad decisions, today we got some big bad ones, including ones that give Donald Trump the power to control agencies that have historically been independent from the president, except of course the independent Federal Reserve Board because the economy and reasons. And if you think that's an exaggeration of the court's analysis, I think you'd be wrong because O. M. And yes, we are of course talking about the opinions in Trump versus Slaughter and Trump versus Cook where Skodis pardon the puns but we just can't avoid it slaughtered its precedent cooked Congress and handed the president the power to fire the head of every independent agency and commission ending the existence of independent agencies But wait there is an important exception and that is the Fed because you know like somehow the press like leaves at TK in a draft that is the court doesn't even particularly try to offer between the big win for Trump six three in slaughter and the loss is for Trump maybe long-term win for the political fortunes of the Republican Party in Cook five four. Both decisions were written by noted institutionalists and maybe long-term win for the political fortunes of the Republican Party in Cook five four. Both decisions were written by noted institutionalists and maybe civil war cost-pospi. player and maybe on the side of the Confederacy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts. We'll explain that remark, don't worry. Andrew Johnson just jumped off the page in that opinion. I could not believe it when I got there. We will explain. But a little more kind of introductory material first. Slaughter, as we have I think been already signaling is a hugely consequential decision. It is a massive redistribution of power and sort of completion of this slow accretion of power over the federal administrative state. its vast regulatory powers into the president. And so this shift is also an enormous expansion of presidential power. So in this emergency episode we will cover the decisions in Trump versus Slaughter and Trump versus Cook and then we will briefly explain why you do not under any circumstances have to applaud the court for its decision in Cook or for its decision in the absentee ballot case, Watson versus RNC. So justices start your engines. It's an ordinary day at 1stst Street. means it's time for the six to three right wing supermajority to shred some longstanding precedent and keep working on the conservative legal movement's wish list. Okay first up Trump versus Slaughter. This is a big win for Trump and a big loss for the public and also for Congress. Remember that time we alluded to it actually on the other episode we released today when pundits were peddling fanfick that what the court was actually doing was empowering Congress? I mean it's unclear Congress. I mean it's unclear that that that that that take is holding up particularly well in the face of slaughter which overturns the near centuries old case, Humphreys executor, that had facilitated modern governance by allowing Congress, and we should say Congress with the signature of the president, over many, many decades, to create independent agencies and empower those agencies that are a critical part of the contemporary federal administrative state. And for once the president was onto something over at Truth Social, like even the president gets this, where he posted, quote, to show the importance of the slaughter case. 90 years of precedent has been all caps completely and unequivocally overruled greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it is most needed most needed what are you planning to do is he envisioning firing the entire federal government in a year or two I just I don't know right but most needed because he has been so constrained and and that is the thrust kind of of the opinion which is the big separation of powers flaw that we have all been afflicted by is insufficient attention to presidential power and excessive permission of checks on presidential power from you know these pesky independent agencies from Congress deciding to give some officials a degree of insulation from the president like that is the most critical separation of powers problem of the day and the court has in its infinite wisdom now solved it So the basic holding of slaughter is that the president has to have control and essential to that control is the power to remove or fire any officer exercising significant executive power. And because according to the court, all agencies, even the ones we have long understood as independent, exercise significant executive power, the president has to be able to fire the heads of those agencies. Even where Congress has passed and presidents have signed laws that say otherwise and that also these laws that say otherwise and that also these laws. by their terms insulate agency heads from presidential removal. None of that is permissible under this court's vision of the separation of powers. So a big question that the case leaves very much open is does this rule also mean the president can fire line officials within these agencies, not just the heads of these agencies, individuals who are part of the career civil service, if they work at agencies that exercise significant executive power. It is wild that they are silent on this question. at least in the earlier cases that are sort of the foundations of building blocks that lead to slaughter, the courts said we're not touching the civil service today, the silence I really fear speaks volumes and it is clearly an invitation to more litigation to fill in some of the gaps and to kind of demarcate the boundaries of this decision. But I fear it is just incredibly expansive. Yes, while they left that unclear, the justices. did make perfectly clear that Humphrey's executor the near centuries old case in which the court upheld the statute governing the Federal Trade Commission that the court invalidated today the decision that said Congress was constitutionally authorized to insulate certain officials from presidential control and removal in order to form independent and expert agencies that case is dead dead dead dead. Yeah. Now it is not entirely clear from the decision whether the case is dead dead dead, dead because it has already been overruled maybe in the Court of History, maybe being left in a lockbox at a fire station, or if it's dead because the Court overruled it today in slaughter. The Court said, kind of why not both, basically said the framework has not stood the test of time and if anything more is left of it, then the Court overrules it. So it can't even make up its mind about whether it is acknowledging the overruling that's already occurred or affirmatively overruling today. tries to have it both ways. Regardless of whether Humphreys was already dead, Project 2025's goal of getting rid of Humphreys executor and expanding presidential power to enable more king-like presidency, mission accomplished. They can go ahead and check that one off the list. Yeah. And it's been a busy day on Truth Social for Trump because in addition to the truth post that we already read, he also just kind of wanted to make sure that everyone knew that a lot of people, including John Roberts, when he was a young lawyer in the right. Reagan administration have been trying to end Humphrey's executor for a long time, but only he, Donald John Trump, was actually able to do it. As he wrote in this truth social post, quote, this decision was long sought by United States presidents dating all the way back to the 1930s. It is. You got to read it, Kate, you got to read it. It is such an honor to be the sitting president who won this historic and unprecedented ruling, one of the most important ever given. You with respect to presidential powers. Thank you for your attention to this matter. He's literally like, I accept this award in honor of FDR, Ronald Reagan. This is the SCODS peace prize, like the FIFA peace prize. Yes, he's finally won it. And he's very, very proud that it is, that it is he who has done this. So this is another benefit of stacking the Supreme Court. Not only will they gift you immunity, which of course they did, just over almost exactly two years ago before he was even back in office. wins that no court has ever had the audacity to attempt before. As we mentioned, Project 2025 called for Humphreys to be overruled. And this seems as good a time as any to remind you that Project 2025 was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation. In recent years, the Heritage Foundation has expanded beyond the Imperial Judiciary, which it helped to construct to just straight up Empire. So despite the fact that its brand symbol is the Liberty Bell, the Heritage Foundation has been offering some pro-monarchy content. just in time for the semi-Sesquicentennial. On its website, Heritage offers commentary that is titled, quote, an American defense of Britain's constitutional monarchy. George Washington and the soldiers at Valley Forge would like a word. Heritage even hosted an event called, quote, the crown under fire. Why the left campaign to cancel the monarchy and undermine a cornerstone of Western democracy will fail. unhinged. There was this like this logic that I just struggled so hard to follow but it was basically it is actually all you know the founders did they wanted to throw off a monarchy and the only way to guard against a monarchy was to have this super powerful president like they literally basically say that it is good for the separation of powers and it will keep us from having a monarchy if only a quote single person that is like a powerful president can produce the vigor and activity necessary to preserve the Constitution separation of powers that last. Their reasoning is basically like George the third may have been onto something and the founders were too woke. Yeah so obviously those guys were on board with overruling Humver's executor and as Justice Sotomayor observed in a very powerful dissent that she wrote joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson the court gives the president a power unknown even to the English crown against which the founders revolted elevating him above his once co-equal branches. Okay, let's walk through the reasoning such as it is and then also talk about the implications of the decision. The reasoning I think boils down to just this is the ultimate triumph of the unitary executive theory, the idea the president has and must have under a correct understanding of the Constitution, full control over the executive branch including administrative agencies. The Chief Justice wrote the opinion, because of course he did, and under that opinion, broad, illimitable removal authority, even though nowhere to be found in the tax. of Article