In less than a month after Donald Trump's second term, a case in which his extreme claims of the presidential power are involved has already made it to the Supreme Court. It raises a question of profound importance: Can the president work in the executive department, even if a law restricts its authority to do so?
In order to grant Trump and authority, the court would have to override long -term precedent and accept a radical theory of the presidential power.
The case concerns Hampton Dellinger, the head of the office of the special consultant, an independent agency who is responsible for the protection of whistleblower and the enforcement of ethics laws. Dellinger was appointed a five -year term by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate last year. The Law According to the office that the special advisor “can only be removed by the President by inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct in office until this term of office expires”, this cannot be removed by the president.
Dellinger was nevertheless released on February 7 with an email with a program that did not state any reasons for the discharge. The government has also given no reason to remove it in its submissions. Rather, the Trump administration claims that it is unconstitutional for the congress to limit the removal of executive officers by law.
This claim contradicts decades of decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of 1935 Humphrey's executor against United StatesThe court unanimously confirmed a federal law that prevented the elimination of the members of the Federal Trade Commission for no reason. The judges emphasized that the congress must be able to protect the federal supervisory authorities from direct control of the president.
The court confirmed this in many subsequent cases. 1988 in Morrison against OlsonThe court confirmed the constitutionality of the law, which enabled independent consultants to examine the allegations of misconduct by high -ranking civil servants of the executive, which they protected them without reason. In a 7-1 decision, which was written by the highest judge William H. Rehnquist, the court emphasized the importance of the independence of the lawyer by the president, in view of the duties of the position.
The Supreme Court also clarified these principles and even addressed the office held by Dellinger in a case of Dellinger. Seila Law LLC against Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Court ruled 5-4 that the congress was removed from the head of the head of an independent regulatory authority, which was led by a single person such as the consumer financial protection office.
The highest judge John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote for the majority, also compared the agency's special advisor in this case and wrote that Dellinger's office “only exercises the limited responsibility for enforcing certain rules for employers and employees of the Federal Government . … it does not combine private parties at all or the regulatory authority comparable to the CFPB. “The Court stated that the congress could therefore restrict the president's ability to dismiss civil servants in Dellinger's position.
The Trump government argues that Humphrey's executors and Morrison vs. Olson should be overridden and that the congress should never be able to restrict the discharge of someone who works in the executive department. The incumbent Attorney General Sarah M. Harris wrote in a letter to Senator Dick Durbin from Illinois, the rendered Democrat in the Justice Committee that the Ministry of Justice came to the conclusion. Trump has violated many federal laws by not only releasing Dellinger, but also members of the National Labor Relations Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Federal Election Commission. In the very extensive perspective of the government, even the protection of the public service from 1883 are unconstitutional.
The administration is based on an extreme view of the presidential power, which is known as the uniform executive theory, which stipulates that the congress cannot regulate the government's operation in any way. This view has no historical support: the author of the constitution was deeply suspicious of the executive authority. The theory ignores the fact that federal powers are both separate and dependent on each other, as well as the importance of checks in the government.
Protecting the executive officers from unchecked presidential power can be very desirable. For example, it is generally recognized that the Federal Reserve board, which has an enormous impact on the economy, should not be directly responsible for the president. It also makes sense that the person who deals with Whistleblower's complaints against the government should have protection against removal.
It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court of Trump will not hear in the case of Dellinger as quickly as the administration asked. A Federal District Court pursued the law and provided a temporary injunction for two weeks to keep Dellinger in office. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that the command could not check and recognize that temporary entry orders in the appeal procedure in general cannot be checked, including the Supreme Court.
But whether in this case in this case, the problem will surely soon be before the Supreme Court. The judges have to decide whether they should comply with long-term, justified precedents—or give the President a great new authority that would threaten a large number of government officials that are legally available.
Erwin Cheminersky, a writer, believes that the UC Berkeley Law School is dean.