Posts Tagged ‘Trump v. Slaughter’

The End Of Humphrey’s Executor: Death Knell For The Deep State?

Monday, June 29th, 2026

The Supreme Court just ended Humphrey’s Executor, and it’s potentially a huge deal.

SCOTUS ruled 6-3 to end a precedent that the president set in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States from 1935.

Therefore, Trump had the authority to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.

Humphrey’s held that “The Federal Trade Commission Act fixes the terms of the Commissioners and provides that any Commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

“Humphrey’s framework has not withstood the test of time,” wrote the majority. “From the start, Humphrey’s was tethered to a highly circumscribed view of the FTC’s role. Humphrey’s by its terms applied only to agencies that occupy ‘no place in the executive department,’ are ‘independent of executive authority,’ and exercise ‘no part of the executive power.’”

I’m glad that SCOTUS pointed out that independent agencies are not independent:

Slaughter relies on reliance. She argues that Congress has relied upon Humphrey’s to create agencies that are “insulated from presidential control.” Brief for Respondent 15. But that is precisely the problem. Despite what Humphrey’s may say, independent agencies are not “independent” in the sense that they are free of the President and thus responsive “only to the people of the United States.” 295 U. S., at 625. Placing the power to administer laws in officers who enjoy “freedom from Presidential oversight (and protection)” does not deliver us to a promised land of technocratic governance—it often results only in an “increased subservience to congressional direction.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 523 (plurality opinion). Pp. 21–25.

The FTC falls under the authority of the executive branch. It is only “independent” because a cabinet secretary does not oversee the agency.

So where does the FTC fall? The majority explained (emphasis mine):

With these principles in mind, the FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers. In its present form, the FTC enforces and administers some 80 statutes covering almost every facet of the Nation’s economy, and the tasks it undertakes are “the very essence of ‘execution’ of the law.” Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U. S. 714, 733. The FTC has the power to promulgate substantive rules carrying the force of law, investigate businesses and enforce statutes through inhouse adjudications, and file civil suits on behalf of the United States in federal court. The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive. Pp. 25–27.

“All the Court does today is recognize what has been clear for a century—that those who fall within the President’s ‘general administrative control’ must be removable by the President at will,” the majority wrote.

From the conclusion of the decision:

To “discharg[e] the duties of his trust,” the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. 30 Writings of George Washington, at 334. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. 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.

Those unelected bureaucrats who consider themselves part of the #resistance to Trump? That’s the Deep State (or at least a part of it).

Now President Trump has a Supreme Court-approved tool to clear out the deadwood holding back reforms. Every agency head resisting Trump’s policies should be sacked and replaced with someone loyal to the Constitution rather than the Democrat Party. (I couldn’t tell you how many that still applies to, but there are a lot of ostensibly “independent” agencies that exercise executive branch powers.) All of them should have Trump-appointed heads, and all should undergo DOGE audits to determine how money was spent under previous regime, and charging those who have abused taxpayer money.

Pink slip by pink slip, progress is made.