Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, concerning President Donald Trump’s authority to fire Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was removed from her position in March.

Following today’s arguments, Cato scholar Brent Skorup released the following statement:

“In recent decades, so-called ‘independent’ federal agencies have accumulated vast executive power — issuing rules, adjudicating disputes, and imposing severe financial penalties for regulatory violations. Yet courts continue to treat these agencies — such as the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Communications Commission — as if they were mere “judicial or legislative aids” from a bygone era. On that basis, officials within these agencies have been wrongly insulated from presidential removal.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to halt the leakage of executive power to unelected, removal-protected regulators. Doing so would help preserve the Constitution’s separation of powers and restore political accountability.

During oral arguments today, most Justices appeared concerned about the rise of independent agencies and the lack of accountability for the officials who run them. We are hopeful the Court will hold that the Constitution forbids such removal restrictions and will overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). That would restore a measure of accountability and strengthen individual liberty.”

In October, Thomas Berry, the director of the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, with Cato scholar Brent Skorup, filed an amicus brief arguing the Court should uphold presidential removal authority over executive branch officials.

Additionally, Thomas Berry was present for today’s arguments. To speak with either Skorup or Berry on Trump v. Slaughter, contact Christopher Tarvardian.