Trump v Wilcoxcurrently in the Supreme CourtShadow Summary“Ask, ask if several federal agencies that should enjoy independence from the president should be deprived.
Wilcox It is the latest case of the Supreme Court, involving the so-called “Unified execution theoryin the strongest form, this will give the president legal control over every federal work that does not belong to Congress or the judiciary. The case doesn’t look particularly good for advocates who advocate agent independence.
In previous unified executive cases, the Republican majority in the court showed that it was absolutely committed to a broad view of presidential power, including the power of firefighters who should be independent of political pressure.
Ninety years ago, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (In 1935), the Supreme Court upheld a law protecting five commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) except for “inefficiency, neglect of responsibility or office.” As the court explained, members of the FTC were “asked to exercise the well-trained judgment of the expert group” – even if their expert judgments were different from those of politically fashionable ideas, they brought technocratic knowledge into their decisions.
Relying on this authority, Congress created several similar institutions – The most important of these is the Federal ReserveLike other central banks in successful countries, it should set interest rates based on professional judgments of economic judgments, rather than based on reasons that benefit the current president. The consequences of depriving the Fed of this independence will be serious. In 1971, Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns succumbed to pressure from President Richard Nixon to add the economy to Nixon’s re-election. Burns’ actions are often accused of Years of “stagnation” – Slow economic growth and high inflation – Subsequent.
It’s hard to exaggerate the current Republican justice dismissed Humphrey’s executiveor federal agencies can act independently of the president. At least back Free Enterprise Funds v. Listed Company Accounting Committee (2010), the court began to restrict Congress’s powers and exempt government officials from presidential control. This process accelerates rapidly Once Trump starts remake of the judiciary.
this Unified execution Theory is even in Trump v. United States (2024)The Supreme Court ruling determines that Trump can leverage the power of presidency crime, a theory that the court relies on to determine that Trump has full control over the Justice Department, even if he ordered prosecutors to target his political enemies.
Now, Wilcox Two federal officials, one of whom sat on the National Labor and Industrial Relations Commission and the other on the Excellent System Protection Commission (MSPB), were fired by Trump despite federal law ensuring that the president cannot fire them at will. Trump’s attempt to fully control MSPB is especially because it may succeed because MSPB is an agency Civil servants should be protected from politically motivated shooting. If Trump gains power to fire MSPB members, he may uncover civil servant protection and anti-corruption reforms Beginning with the Chester A. Arthur administration.
More widely Wilcox Give the Republican majority to the court a tool to overthrow Humphrey’s executive Overall, all federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve, may end independence.
In view of the previous unified administrative rulings of the Court, there is no reason to hope for any meaningful remains Humphrey’s executive Can survive. Yet, as we stare at the chaos Trump created in less than three months of office, Continuously changing tariffsthis Despise the court orderdecisions since then Return a prison with thousands of ISIS combatants – At least in theory, at least some of the Republicans in the court would doubt whether it is really time to expand the president’s power and give him full control of the Fed.
Unified executives explain
The Constitution is a well-known vague document. It prohibits police from making “Unreasonable” searchthis term is not defined. It can preventExcessive and “cruel and unusual punishment“Don’t tell us what these terms mean. A provision of the Constitution prohibits states from cutting”Privileges or immunity of American citizens. “No even the Supreme Court Know what this means.
Therefore, most That’s all the U.S. Constitution Compared to telling stories. In the early 20th century, when the court was ruled by industrial-era conservatives, the justice told a story about an unclear constitutional language that prohibited the state from denying anyoneFreedom…No proper legal proceedings“Prohibiting labor protection measures, such as minimum wages. In the 1970s, when more liberal judges dominated the court, the court told a different story Guarantee the right to abortion. In both cases, only most justices believe in them, and these stories are capable.
Unified executives from similar well springs. The Republican justices draw from the constitutional provisions “Executive power should belong to the President of the United States of America. “As Justice Antonin Scalia summed up this provision in his objection Morrison v Olson (1988),Not saying Some Execution rights, but all Executive Power”Hold by the President.
Therefore, fans of the unified enforcement theory believe that the president must have the right to hire and fire any government official with the power to “execute” in nature.
The problem with this theory is that the word “execution” is far less defined than what the Republican judge said. exist MorrisonScalia, for example, believes that the power to file criminal prosecution is a “typical executive function” and must be under the full control of the president. and all six Republican judges This view is adopted in their view trump card Immune decision – This is the reason trump card The president can order the Justice Department to prosecute its enemies, and the president can do nothing after that.
However, Scalia’s historical evidence on prosecutors’ claims is extremely weak. For early American history, the prosecution is Usually initiated by a private lawyer Who seeks grand jury prosecution. Judges sometimes file prosecutions, and even today, they retain certain powers. Under current law, federal district judges can Sometimes appoint interim US lawyersthey oversee almost all prosecutions under these judges’ jurisdiction.
However, in Wilcox The case is not whether a unified theory of enforcement can be actually found in the Constitution, or is initially a prohibited independent body that understands the Constitution. Importantly, all Republican justices enthusiastically believe what Scalia tells in his story Morrison Disputes and said a lot. For example, when asked Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who wanted to overturn the Supreme Court case in 2016, he named it Morrisonsaid he wanted to “Put the last nailIn this decision.
In other words, the Republican justices seem to use Wilcox Tell this story, they’ve been eager to tell it for so long – or make it clear Humphrey’s executive Or figure that decision out so clearly that it no longer has any real power. That might make Trump The most powerful president in American history.
Indeed, if the court even puts Trump in full control of the Fed, Trump will gain the power he can use to make his tariffs cause turbulence, which looks like some small vortex in the global economy.
