The Trump administration is challenging a decades-old Supreme Court precedent that limits the president’s ability to fire independent agency leaders. If successful, this move could give the president greater control over federal agencies, potentially reshaping the balance of power in Washington.
Key Facts:
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) informed Sen. Dick Durbin that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to overturn *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States* (1935).
- This case restricts the president’s power to remove heads of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
- Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris stated that these protections are unconstitutional and that the DOJ will no longer defend them.
- The Trump administration argues that independent agencies should be directly accountable to the president, aligning with the “unitary executive” theory.
- Critics, including Durbin, claim the move is a partisan attempt to consolidate power and weaken checks on the executive branch.
The Rest of The Story:
At the heart of this legal battle is whether presidents should have the power to remove independent agency leaders at will.
The Trump administration believes Humphrey’s Executor has eroded executive authority, allowing unelected bureaucrats to act without proper oversight.
Supporters of the move, including conservative legal scholars, argue that these agencies have become unaccountable and operate outside of constitutional constraints.
They point to past Supreme Court rulings that have already chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor, suggesting the Court may be willing to reconsider the precedent.
Opponents, primarily Democrats, say this is an attempt to dismantle institutional safeguards and grant the president unchecked power.
Sen. Durbin criticized the decision, claiming it prioritizes corporate interests over the American people.
Meanwhile, legal experts expect this case to move swiftly through the courts, potentially setting the stage for a landmark Supreme Court ruling.
The Acting Solicitor General has notified Congress of DOJ's intent to ask #SCOTUS to overrule Humphrey's Executor—a major 1935 ruling upholding the independence of agencies like the FCC, FTC, NLRB, etc.https://t.co/GSXVfTTOAD
Because *less* independence is what we need… pic.twitter.com/2oah7L1ULT
— Steve Vladeck (@steve_vladeck) February 13, 2025
Commentary:
This case is about one fundamental question: Does the president have full control over the executive branch, or do unelected bureaucrats get to call the shots?
The Constitution is clear—executive power rests with the president, not lifelong agency officials who operate with little accountability to voters.
For too long, the so-called “deep state” has wielded power over policy without answering to the people.
These independent agencies have been packed with career bureaucrats who undermine elected leaders and push their own agendas.
This must end.
If elections are to matter, the president must have the authority to implement policies through officials who align with his vision.
Otherwise, we are governed by an unelected ruling class that resists change regardless of who wins at the ballot box.
The Trump administration’s challenge to *Humphrey’s Executor* is a necessary step toward restoring executive power as the Founders intended.
Presidents are elected by the people to lead, and they should have the ability to remove agency heads who refuse to follow their directives.
The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to correct a mistake that has weakened presidential authority for nearly a century.
If the Court rules in favor of Trump’s DOJ, it will be a victory for constitutional governance, ensuring that future presidents—not entrenched bureaucrats—control the executive branch.
The Bottom Line:
The Trump administration is taking on a decades-old precedent that shields independent agency leaders from presidential oversight.
If the Supreme Court overturns *Humphrey’s Executor*, it will shift power back to elected officials and away from unelected bureaucrats.
This case could mark a major turning point in the fight to rein in the deep state and restore presidential authority.
Read Next
– New Poll Shows Who California Democrats Want For Governor in 2026
– White House Blasts Left Wing Sen. Murphy as a ‘Moron’ After Falling For a Parody Account
– Homan Fires Back at AOC Over Mocking His Words that ‘Evading Law Enforcement’ Has Consequences