In a recent Supreme Court session, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed her concerns regarding the president's authority to dismiss government experts, such as scientists, doctors, economists, and PhDs.
She argued that allowing such dismissals is "not in the best interest" of the American public. Her remarks were made during the oral arguments for the case Trump v. Slaughter, where she engaged in a dialogue with U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. Justice Jackson questioned the rationale behind agencies not being accountable to Congress, emphasizing that "Congress established them and can eliminate them."
As reported by Breitbart, the context of these arguments follows a Supreme Court decision in September that permitted President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Justice Jackson reiterated her confusion over why agencies are not directly answerable to Congress, stating, "Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that were concerned that theres some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I dont understand that argument."
Solicitor General Sauer contended that Congress is the constitutional authority overseeing these agencies, highlighting the significant separation of powers. However, Justice Jackson countered that Sauer's arguments seemed to suggest that independent agencies require presidential control due to a lack of accountability. She expressed a differing perspective on the potential dangers and real-world implications of such a stance, contrasting it with Justice Kavanaugh's exploration of the issue.
Justice Jackson elaborated on her viewpoint, stating, "My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters." She argued that replacing experts with presidential loyalists could undermine the interests of American citizens, particularly in areas like the economy and transportation. "These issues should not be in presidential control," she asserted, questioning the necessity of presidential oversight in these domains.
The case has broader implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies. Justice Jackson's comments underscore a fundamental debate about the role of expertise and independence in government operations. The Supreme Court's decision could reshape the landscape of federal agency governance, potentially enhancing presidential authority at the expense of congressional oversight.
SCOTUSblog notes that the Supreme Court has indicated a likelihood of overturning a federal law that limits the president's power to dismiss FTC members. This development could signal a shift towards greater executive control over independent agencies, raising questions about the future of non-partisan expertise in government.
Login