Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, stepped into the spotlight Monday with pointed reservations about the administration’s bid to reshape federal agency power.
According to Newsweek, Kavanaugh voiced unease over the Trump administration’s stance on overturning a nearly century-old precedent that restricts presidential power to fire federal agency leaders without cause. The case, tied to President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, could redefine executive authority.
This isn’t just a legal skirmish; it’s a battle over who truly steers the ship of government. Kavanaugh’s hesitation hints at deeper worries about balancing power without tipping the scales too far toward unchecked control.
Kavanaugh didn’t hold back, saying, “The other side says that your position would undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve, and they have concerns about that, and I share those concerns.” His focus on the Fed reveals a sharp fear that economic stability could be jeopardized by political whims.
If the Fed loses its shield from presidential overreach, we’re looking at a future where monetary policy bends to campaign promises. That’s a dangerous game, especially when markets crave steady hands over populist stunts.
Contrast this with U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s defense that the Fed operates under a “distinct historical tradition.” His argument feels like a sidestep, dodging the core issue of whether any agency should be a political pawn.
The case hinges on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling that cemented limits on firing agency heads without cause. Sauer called it an “indefensible outlier,” pushing for its reversal as a relic unfit for modern governance.
Yet, Justice Sonia Sotomayor fired back, asking, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Her words cut to the heart of why this precedent still holds weight for many.
Overturning a near-century of legal bedrock isn’t a small ask; it’s a seismic shift. If Sauer’s view wins, the ripple effects could turn expert-driven agencies into extensions of whoever holds the Oval Office.
Trump’s actions extend beyond Slaughter, with removals at the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. Only Fed Governor Lisa Cook and Copyright Official Shira Perlmutter have dodged the axe so far.
This pattern suggests a broader strategy to tighten its grip over federal bodies. While accountability matters, stripping away nonpartisan expertise risks turning public service into a loyalty contest.
Slaughter, first appointed by Trump and later reappointed by Biden, stands as a curious flashpoint. Her firing, despite Senate confirmation for a term until 2029, raises questions about whether stability in leadership is being sacrificed for control.
Liberal justices like Elena Kagan warned of granting the president “massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power” if the precedent falls. Her concern paints a vivid picture of a government where expertise bows to executive fiat.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed this, noting Congress designed agencies to house nonpartisan experts “working on certain issues for the good of the American people.” Her point stings, reminding us that governance isn’t just about who’s in charge but who’s best equipped to serve.
As the Court weighs this monumental decision, the stakes couldn’t be clearer. On one side, there’s a call for presidential authority to cut through bureaucratic inertia; on the other, a plea to preserve the guardrails that keep democracy from sliding into overreach.
