Trump admin aims for killing blow to independence of ‘Deep State’ agencies

The Trump Administration’s Challenge to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States: A Shift in Executive Power

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is seeking to overturn the landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, aiming to expand presidential authority over independent federal agencies. This 1935 ruling established that the President could not remove officials from independent agencies without cause, ensuring their independence from political influence. Now, the DOJ argues this limitation is unconstitutional, citing the 1926 Myers v. United States case, which granted the President broader removal powers.

Historical Context and Legal Argument

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States allowed independent agencies to operate with commissioners removable only for cause, protecting them from direct presidential control. The Trump administration contends this hinders the President’s ability to oversee the executive branch effectively. They advocate for a unitary executive theory, where the President has complete authority over executive branch appointments and removals, aligning with conservative legal views that this structure reflects the Constitution’s original intent.

Political Motivations and Implications

President Trump’s push against the "deep state" frames this legal move as part of his broader campaign against perceived bureaucratic opposition. Overturning Humphrey’s Executor could allow the President to fire heads of agencies like the FTC, NLRB, and CPSC without cause, potentially influencing these bodies to align more closely with presidential policies. Critics, including Senator Durbin, warn this could erode the independence of these agencies, turning them into political tools.

Legal and Practical Challenges

The administration faces legal challenges, including a lawsuit from a former NLRB member contesting her termination. Lower courts may uphold existing precedent, but the strategy appears to involve relentless appeals to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority might reconsider Humphrey’s Executor. If overturned, the decision would significantly shift federal power dynamics, allowing future presidents greater control over independent agencies.

Broader Implications

The outcome could affect regulatory decisions, labor policies, and consumer protections, undermining the independence of agencies intended to serve public interests. This shift would set a precedent for increased executive influence, reshaping government balance and potentially politicizing regulatory bodies.

In summary, the Trump administration’s challenge to Humphrey’s Executor represents a strategic effort to consolidate executive power, aligning with its narrative against the "deep state." The legal battle’s outcome could fundamentally alter U.S. governance, impacting the independence of federal agencies and the balance of power in the federal government.