(DailyChive.com) – The Department of Justice is pushing for a major shift in federal agency power, potentially altering decades of established precedent.
At a Glance
- DOJ seeks to overturn 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which protects federal agency independence
- Change would affect National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Federal Trade Commission
- DOJ argues current protections are unconstitutional, limiting presidential authority
- Move could significantly alter power balance between Congress and executive branch
DOJ Challenges Long-Standing Precedent
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, a decision that has long protected the independence of federal agencies. This move, communicated by acting solicitor general Sarah Harris in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Dick Durbin, signals a significant shift in the DOJ’s stance on executive power.
The DOJ’s new position asserts that the president should have the authority to directly terminate officers at key agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Federal Trade Commission. This stance challenges the longstanding statutory tenure protections for members of these agencies, which the DOJ now considers unconstitutional.
Constitutional Concerns and Executive Authority
At the heart of this issue is the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress. The DOJ argues that the current protections, based on the Humphrey’s Executor ruling, unconstitutionally interfere with the president’s authority to oversee and manage executive officers. This position aligns with a 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Free Enterprise Fund case, which found similar removal protections unconstitutional.
The DOJ’s stance reflects a desire to consolidate power within the executive branch, potentially giving the president more direct control over these crucial federal agencies. Critics, including Senator Dick Durbin, argue that this move could undermine laws protecting consumers and workers by reducing the independence of these regulatory bodies.
Implications for Federal Agencies
If successful, the DOJ’s challenge could significantly alter the structure and functioning of key federal agencies. The National Labor Relations Board, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Federal Trade Commission have not yet commented on this development, but the potential impact on their operations and independence is substantial.
Multiple pending cases in lower courts are related to this issue, stemming from early executive actions taken by the Trump administration. These cases, including those involving NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and Hampton Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel, cite the Humphrey’s Executor precedent in their legal arguments.
Next Steps and Potential Outcomes
While the DOJ has clearly stated its intention to challenge the Humphrey’s Executor ruling, the exact timing and manner of this challenge remain uncertain. The letter from acting solicitor general Sarah Harris is not a Supreme Court brief, and the DOJ has not specified when it will formally request the Supreme Court to act on this matter.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear this case and ultimately sides with the DOJ’s position, it could lead to a significant restructuring of federal agency power. This would potentially give current and future presidents more direct control over these agencies, altering the checks and balances that have been in place for nearly 80 years.
As this situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor the responses from Congress, the affected agencies, and legal experts. The outcome of this challenge could have far-reaching implications for the structure of the federal government and the balance of power between its branches.
Copyright 2025, DailyChive.com
