US Supreme Court Issues Dual Rulings, Expanding Presidential Power While Upholding Fed Independence

(CNA Washington, June 29 - Compiled from foreign reports) The U.S. Supreme Court today issued two rulings. One acknowledges the President's authority to dismiss officials of independent regulatory agencies for any reason, while another explicitly upholds the independence of the Federal Reserve, stating that Fed officials cannot be arbitrarily removed.

According to The New York Times, in the case of President Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Democratic commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, nine justices ruled 6-3 in favor of the president's dismissal power, with three liberal justices dissenting. Slaughter frequently clashed with Trump's policy direction.

This ruling effectively expands presidential power and could lead to significant changes in the government structure, as it would allow the president to intervene more directly in independent agencies.

However, in another case involving Trump's dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the justices ruled 5-4 that Trump could not dismiss Cook based on unproven mortgage fraud allegations, nor could he dismiss her without giving her an opportunity to respond. Trump dismissed Cook at a time when he was pressuring the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.

The Washington Post noted that in the Slaughter case ruling, the justices essentially overturned a historical precedent of nearly a century, which granted Congress oversight power by requiring the president to have sufficient cause to dismiss officials of independent regulatory agencies.

The ruling in the Slaughter case aligns with the long-held argument of conservatives that the president should have unrestricted power over the executive branch, affecting the heads of over 20 federal agencies. However, in the Cook case ruling, the justices prevented the president from exerting greater control over the U.S. central bank.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Chief Justice John Roberts authored both opinions.

In the Cook case, Roberts wrote, "According to past Supreme Court precedents, Cook had the right to be informed and to have an opportunity to respond before being dismissed."

Roberts wrote that accepting the Trump administration's position would allow the president to remove Federal Reserve governors at any time, for any reason, without prior notice and without any subsequent judicial review, potentially rendering the protection of "for cause" removal meaningless.

Roberts explicitly stated that this dispute involved far more than just Cook's position. Allowing the president to arbitrarily dismiss Federal Reserve governors would undermine the central bank's ability to set policy free from political pressure, which was the core reason Congress granted the Federal Reserve its independent status.

Cook sued after her dismissal, arguing that Trump's action violated a federal law stipulating that the president can only remove Federal Reserve members for "good cause." Two lower courts had previously ruled in favor of Cook.

Today's Supreme Court ruling means that Cook may remain in her original position for several months or even years during the remand and further proceedings of the Cook case, and Trump has not yet nominated a successor. (Compiled by: Chen Yi-wei) 06/30/2024

Stand with facts, your every donation is a force to protect press freedom.

Download the CNA "First News" APP for real-time updates.

This website's text, images, and videos may not be reproduced, publicly broadcast, publicly transmitted, or used without authorization.