TRUMP UNLEASHED "THE COURT SIDES WITH THE PEOPLE’S PRESIDENT

The Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case challenging President Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, where justices seemed to favor expanding presidential power, suggesting the President can fire independent agency heads like FTC officials without cause, potentially overturning the Humphrey's Executor precedent that limited this power to "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance" for such bodies.

A decision is expected soon, but the arguments indicate a strong conservative majority leans toward affirming broad presidential removal power, viewing restrictions on firing as unconstitutional, thereby allowing such removals as "Article II is the Law of the Land".

Key Points from the Arguments:

Challenging Precedent: The case tests the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling, which protected FTC commissioners from at-will firing by the President.

Presidential Power: The Trump administration argued that the President, as head of the Executive Branch, must have ultimate control, including the power to remove officials, even from "independent" agencies, as stated in Article II of the Constitution.

"No Cause Needed": Justices appeared to agree that limiting removal to "for cause" (like inefficiency or neglect) for FTC officials infringes on executive authority, suggesting the President can fire them without any reason.

Impact: A ruling expanding this power would significantly increase presidential control over independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and potentially other bodies, impacting their independence.

A formal ruling is anticipated, with strong indications the Court will rule in favor of broader presidential power, signaling a potential shift in the balance between executive authority and independent agency functions.