Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power

submitted by

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/06/court-allows-trump-to-fire-ftc-commissioner-and-overturns-major-restraint-on-presidential-power/

7
27
1

Log in to comment

Hot Top New Old
edited

The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Donald Trump sweeping new authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies that Congress intended to be independent. By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. And in reaching that decision, the court overruled its 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the law at the center of the dispute.

More broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers.

So if it’s under the executive branch, Trump can now control it! It’s done! American autocracy over the executive has now been legislated.

Unified executive theory is no longer a theory!

 reply
8

Comments in politics@lemmy.world

A massive increase in Executive Branch power, reaching close to Kingly powers, the Unitary Executive.

 reply
38

Can we just pass a law saying that all the decisions from the last 4 years are reversed?

 reply
28

Need to un-MAGA the Supreme Court first or they’ll rule in favor of any suit challenging that law.

 reply
30

Which is most easily accomplished by expanding the supreme Court. And senate.

 reply
7

How does this go along with the other one saying he couldn’t fire Lisa Cook without cause? What’s the difference here?

 reply
27

Something, something about “deep-rooted history and tradition” that protects the federal reserve and not any other Congressionally-created independent commission.

Never mind that the “history and tradition” of central banks in the United States is that two previous banks failed before the federal reserve, and the first one was considered by many founding fathers to be unconstitutional.

Basically, it’s a made-up argument that makes no sense. And all done to protect Justice Robert’s stock portfolio from Trump’s fiscal mismanagement.

 reply
17
Insert image