Supreme Court to weigh Presidential Authority in Independent agency Removals
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court announced it will hear arguments next month in a case challenging the extent of presidential power over independent federal agencies, stemming from a dispute over former President Trump’s removal of a federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner. The case, Lacrosse Footwear Inc. v. FTC, directly addresses whether presidents can fire commissioners of agencies like the FTC at will, or if those commissioners are protected by “for-cause” removal provisions.
The upcoming hearing sets the stage for a potentially sweeping decision that could reshape the structure of the federal government and substantially impact the independence of agencies regulating vast sectors of the American economy. A ruling in favor of presidential authority could place numerous agencies under greater White House control, while a decision upholding for-cause removal protections would preserve a longstanding balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
At the heart of the dispute is the 2018 firing of FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright by President Trump. Lacrosse Footwear Inc., a company involved in an FTC enforcement action, argues that Wright’s removal was unlawful. the core legal question is whether the FTC’s enabling statute, and those of similar independent agencies, includes implicit protections against at-will removal by the president.
Legal experts suggest the outcome could extend far beyond the FTC. “all the agencies these days have a lot of powers, adjudicatory powers, rule-making powers, enforcement powers,” explained attorney Jonathan Fitzpatrick. “I suspect no matter how they do it, all the independent agencies with the exception of the Fed are going to be under the president’s thumb” if the Court sides with broader presidential authority.
More than 200 members of Congress filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to uphold for-cause removal protections. They contend that these protections represent a crucial compromise designed to insulate agencies from political interference and ensure impartial regulation. The brief warns that allowing at-will removals would “detrimentally alter the way the public interacts with these regulators, and, consequently, the economic choices the regulators make.”
The lawmakers further argued that such a shift would foster a perception that the President can unfairly influence agency decisions to favor certain businesses,creating an uneven playing field. “[A]t-will removals of commissioners of independent agencies would lead regulated entities and the public to believe that the President is able to pick winners and losers in the American economy through intervening in individual cases,” the brief stated.
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected next year, will clarify the scope of presidential control over independent agencies and define the future of regulatory independence in the United States.
