In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s inauguration, a significant number of legal challenges have emerged, particularly concerning executive orders and the authority to remove heads of independent government agencies. These legal battles have intensified interest in the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established precedent for the protection of agency heads from arbitrary dismissal.

Context of Executive Power and Agency Independence

The core issue revolves around the president’s power to dismiss officials from independent agencies. Although the Constitution allows the president to remove certain officials, laws like the one governing the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) require a valid reason, known as “for cause,” for termination. The Humphrey’s Executor ruling reaffirmed this principle by blocking President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing an FTC commissioner, thereby ensuring these agencies can operate without political fear.

Current Legal Developments

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently mandated the reinstatement of Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, who had been dismissed in February. Both argue their removals lacked the legal justification required by existing law. Following the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts stayed the reinstatement while the court deliberates on the matter.

Expert Insights

To gain deeper insights into the significance of these legal developments, I spoke with Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Vladeck discussed the likelihood of the current Supreme Court overruling Humphrey’s Executor and the challenges that could arise from such a decision.

Vladeck noted that while criticism of Humphrey’s Executor has gained traction—especially among conservative legal circles—no president has formally sought to overturn the ruling until now. He explained that the 1935 decision has historically been accepted as valid, with past administrations refraining from dismissing agency heads without just cause.

Historical Analysis of Executive Power

Tracing the origins of this judicial precedent, it is evident that for-cause removal protections were being established prior to FDR’s presidency. The Supreme Court’s 1926 decision in Myers v. United States suggested potential unconstitutionality regarding such restrictions, but it was Humphrey’s Executor that ultimately served as a critical test case.

Despite no overt overruling, the present composition of the court has altered the perception of these protections. The modern court tends to regard Humphrey’s Executor as an outlier in the broader context of executive authority.

The Importance of the Federal Reserve

An essential component of this discussion is the Federal Reserve, which, according to Vladeck, remains a significant factor deterring the court from overruling Humphrey’s Executor. The unique independence of the Fed from executive influence is seen as critical for the stability of the U.S. economy, suggesting that any challenge to the precedent could inadvertently undermine this independence.

Implications for the Future

Vladeck articulated his belief that the court is likely facing a pivotal moment concerning these cases, particularly with the urgency demonstrated by Chief Justice Roberts in pausing the reinstatement of Harris and Wilcox. As the court prepares to delve into these issues, the fate of Humphrey’s Executor could very well be resolved before the summer recess.