An ‘Originalist’ Court Overturns an Originalist Decision
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered what conservative originalists have long been rooting for: overturning Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. That 90-year-old decision, which the Roberts Court has gradually been chipping away at, held that Congress could create independent commissions—such as the Federal Trade Commission—whose members are appointed by the president but protected from no-cause presidential removal. According to Roberts’s opinion in Trump v. Slaughter, this limitation on the president’s power is unconstitutional.
TL;DR
- The Roberts Court overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a decision that protected members of independent commissions from arbitrary presidential removal.
- The Humphrey's decision, written by Justice George Sutherland, was based on historical and originalist interpretations of the separation of powers.
- Critics argue that Roberts's opinion in Trump v. Slaughter collapses a distinction between administrative functions and true executive power, expanding presidential control.
- The ruling is seen as imposing a modern, formalistic view of separation of powers that benefits presidential power over congressional power.
- An exception made for the Federal Reserve Board highlights the inconsistency in the reasoning, as similar logic could apply to other agencies like the FTC.