US supreme court appears poised to back Trump's power to fire FTC member

"The US supreme court on Monday appeared poised to back the Trump administration's argument that the president should be able to fire independent board members that for almost a century have been protected from presidential interference. The court heard arguments concerning the legality of Donald Trump's firing of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member and appeared to be split down partisan lines in favor of"

"D John Sauer, the solicitor general, repeatedly argued that independent agencies like the FTC are a headless fourth branch with limited government oversight and that, in general, independent agencies are not accountable to the people. He argued that the key 90-year precedent, Humphrey's Executor, must be overruled, describing the ruling as a decaying husk with bold, and particularly dangerous pretensions."

"John Yoo, who served as a justice department lawyer under George W Bush, told Reuters the case presents one of the most important questions over the last century on the workings of the federal government. He added: The future of the independence of the administrative state is at issue. The case gives the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, an opportunity to overturn a New Deal-era supreme court precedent in"

The Supreme Court considered whether the president can remove independent agency board members, focusing on Donald Trump's dismissal of FTC member Rebecca Slaughter. The justice department appealed a lower court finding that the president exceeded his authority by removing Slaughter before her term expired. Solicitor General John Sauer urged overruling the 90-year Humphrey's Executor precedent, characterizing independent agencies as unaccountable and likening them to a headless fourth branch. Legal commentators say the case raises fundamental questions about administrative-state independence. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the 1935 precedent's relevance to modern agency structures. A decision for the administration could significantly expand presidential power.

Read at www.theguardian.com