A new Supreme Court ruling marks another significant step toward reining in the administrative state and restoring constitutional accountability. Writing in RealClearMarkets, Market Institute President Charles Sauer argues that while Trump v. Slaughter strengthens presidential oversight of federal agencies, Congress must continue the work by reclaiming its constitutional lawmaking authority.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter is one of the most consequential rulings of the term for the future of the administrative state. In a new RealClearMarkets column, Market Institute President Charles Sauer explains how the Court’s decision reinforces presidential accountability while exposing the deeper constitutional problems posed by so-called independent agencies.
The case centered on former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who challenged her dismissal by President Trump under the longstanding precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the President, continuing its recent trend of limiting the power and independence of the federal regulatory bureaucracy.
As Sauer writes:
“Given the Court’s interest in bringing the regulatory state in line with the Constitution, it is no surprise that the Court sided with President Trump in the Slaughter case.”
The decision builds on the Court’s broader effort to restore constitutional limits on the administrative state, following last year’s rejection of the Chevron doctrine. Sauer argues that these rulings reflect a growing recognition that executive officials exercising presidential authority must ultimately remain accountable to the elected President.
Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized this principle in the majority opinion:
“The President must have the assistance of officers he can trust… Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
While Sauer views the ruling as an important victory for constitutional governance, he argues it should be seen as only one step toward broader reform. He contends that independent agencies continue to combine legislative, executive, and judicial powers in ways fundamentally at odds with the Constitution’s separation of powers.
“The courts and Congress should recognize the very existence of independent agencies as unconstitutional,” Sauer writes, noting that agencies routinely write regulations with the force of law, enforce those regulations, and adjudicate alleged violations through their own administrative law judges.
Sauer concludes by urging Congress to restore its constitutional role through passage of the REINS Act, which would require congressional approval of major federal regulations before they take effect. Requiring lawmakers to approve significant regulations would increase accountability while helping ensure that lawmaking authority remains where the Constitution places it—with Congress.
Read Charles Sauer’s full RealClearMarkets article for more on why Trump v. Slaughter is an important step toward restoring constitutional government and why Congress must continue reforming the administrative state.
0 Comments