Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. On Wednesday, the Trump government has had the leaders removed from two independent agencies, while their challenges for their dismissals are improving in court.
The supreme judge, who only acted, has issued an 'administrative residence', an interim measure that was intended to give the judges some breathing space, while the entire Supreme Court regards the case. He ordered the officials to submit an instructions in their affairs on Tuesday.
The order of supreme judge Roberts came in response to an emergency request from the administration that the court had asked to pause a decision of a court of appeal that required the repair of the officials.
The administration has also asked the court to assess the cases and to plan arguments during a special hearing of the court in May, with a decision to follow by July.
“We recognize the concerns about the process and decide the important questions that these cases have asked on such a short timeline,” wrote D. John Sauer, the lawyer -general.
But he said that the alternative was unacceptable, because it would allow the two agencies, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board to be controlled by officials who are hostile to the goals of the administration.
“The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably in the policy objectives of the administration for a single day – much less for the months that would probably take before the courts resolve this lawsuit,” Mr Sauer wrote.
If the Supreme Court does not act, he wrote: “The president can be forced to continue to entrust the executive power to dismissed officers for more than a quarter of his four -year term.”
The emergency application was the last in a series of requests in which the Supreme Court was asked to board after the federal judges had blocked the initiatives of the administration on staff, expenditure, immigration and citizenship. The judgments of the court on such requests to date have been for the time being and technical.
The emergency request from the administration strives for a more categorical statement that focuses on a fundamental 90-year legal precedent that said that congress can limit the power of the president to dismiss the heads of agencies and thus protect them against politics.
Some conservative judges have said that they would convince the precedent, with the argument that the unconstitutional infringement of the president's power to lead the executive. That would considerably expand the ability of President Trump to dismiss the leaders of agencies for no reason, despite laws that require a good reason for the termination.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit mentioned the precedent on Monday, ruling with a 7-to-4 votes that the Cathy Harris administration should recover from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne A. Wilcox on the National Labor Relations Board. Both women were appointed by President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Weakening the power of the two boards is part of President Trump's campaign to reform the government and the workplace. The Merit Systems Protection Board assesses federal employment disputes, while the National Labor Relations Board guarantees the rights of employees in the private sector.
Mr. Trump fired the two officials in February. Although the federal laws of him require a cause, he gave no reasons.
In Monday's statement, which was not signed, the majority wrote that a precedent of the Supreme Court of 1935, Humphrey's executor v. United States, had blocked the fired.
That case concerned a federal law that protected commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission and said that they could only be removed for “inefficiency, breach of duty or crime in office”.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired a commissioner, William Humphrey. The only reason he gave was that Mr Humphrey's actions were not tailored to the policy goals of the administration.
Mr. Humphrey died a few months later and his estate complained to reclaim the wages he would have received at that time. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the shooting had been illegal and that the status that the issue was discussed was constitutional.
In 2020, the Supreme Court seemed to lay the foundation for convincing that precedent in a case with the Bureau for Financial Protection of Consumers.
“In our constitutional system,” written supreme judge John G. Roberts Jr. “, is the executive power of the president and that power generally includes the possibility of supervising and removing the agents who exercise the executive power instead.”
But the supreme judge made a distinction between agencies led by a single director, such as the Consumer Bureau, and authorities with several members, such as the two boards. Different judges said they didn't think the differences were useful.
The general reasoning in the opinion of the supreme judge left the performer of Humphrey on lifestination support. Two court – Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch – would have immediately pulled the plug.
“The decision in the performer of Humphrey is a direct threat to our constitutional structure and as a result the freedom of the American people,” wrote Justice Thomas.
He added: “With today's decision, the court rejected almost every aspect of the Humphrey performer. In a future case I would reject what is left of this incorrect precedent.”
The majority of the Court of Appeal said on Monday that it was mandatory to follow the precedent of 1935. If it needs to be overrun, the majority said, the Supreme Court should do this.
