What Is Humphrey’s Executor and Why Should You Care About It?

[berg80]

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good—promoting the health, safety, and prosperity of all Americans and their communities. Housed in the executive branch, independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are staffed nearly exclusively by nonpartisan experts who help safeguard consumers from unsafe products, protect workers’ rights, enhance highway safety, and stop big banks from scamming people, among other purposes. The leaders of those agencies are generally selected by the president and the leaders of the minority party to ensure they are bipartisan, and these commissioners jointly consider agency actions. Once installed, commissioners are supposed to be insulated from day-to-day political influence, unlike appointees who run executive departments directly under the president’s control, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Beginning with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court for 90 years has upheld congressional requirements that a president can fire independent agency commissioners only for a serious reason, such as malfeasance or neglect of duties. Yet Humphrey’s Executor and cases that reinforced its ruling are now under attack by President Donald Trump’s administration, which flouted the law and summarily fired commissioners at multiple independent agencies without any legally required cause.
https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ys-executor-and-why-should-you-care-about-it/

trump's attempt to expand the powers of the prez beyond their current legal limits (one never knows what his SC will do since the conservatives have no respect for the Constitution) is the defining legal battle taking shape.

Most importantly with respect to trump's efforts to remove or marginalize those government employees and agencies assigned by Congress with the duty of executive branch oversight. trump's goal being the realization of the unitary executive theory.

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

“I recognize that for both sides, this court is merely a speed bump for you all to get to the Supreme Court,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee in Washington D.C., said Wednesday, adding: “The issue at stake is of extreme importance, given that the NLRB is far from the only multi-member, independent, executive branch agency with statutory removal protections. That’s why I’ve chosen to have this public hearing.”

The case stems from the unlawful firing without cause of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, who quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court. Her case, running parallel to other challenges of plainly illegal firings of members of independent agencies, is ultimately bound for the Supreme Court, as the Trump administration aims to get the justices to overturn current precedent that protects her from at-will firing.

The Trump DOJ is candid about that posture.

Judge Howell ticked through fundamental facts of the case:

• Both parties agree that Wilcox was not removed for malfeasance or neglect, the causes Congress permits her to be fired for (“correct,” said DOJ attorney Harry Graver);
• Wilcox was not given the notice or hearing the law demands (“correct”);
• The Justice Department does not argue that her removal was inconsistent with existing law (“we’re not relying on the statutory standard,” Graver agreed);
• Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent establishing that Congress can put limits on presidential removal powers for agencies like the NLRB, is still good law that binds the court (“100 percent”).

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

 

[White 6]

It will be interesting to see how it works out, both in this "speed bump" and when it gets to The Supremes, to decide whether the Office of the President will receive unprecedented power/authority to fire at will, with or without reason or justification based on performance, even undisputed good performance.

 

[berg80]

It will be interesting to see how it works out, both in this "speed bump" and when it gets to The Supremes, to decide whether the Office of the President will receive unprecedented power/authority to fire at will, with or without reason or justification based on performance, even undisputed good performance.

The USAID ruling gave me a sliver of hope all is not lost when it comes to the Supremes but we know 4 of the 6 conservatives are all in for trump no matter how egregiously he wants to violate the law.

Trump's firings of independent agency heads put 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent in crosshairs​

Trump's firings of independent agency heads put 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent in crosshairs

President Trump has terminated the heads of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, sparking legal challenges over their removal.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Rawley]

It will be interesting to see how it works out, both in this "speed bump" and when it gets to The Supremes, to decide whether the Office of the President will receive unprecedented power/authority to fire at will, with or without reason or justification based on performance, even undisputed good performance.

I think they will reverse it. THe whole concept of "independent" agencies is antithetical to our system of checks and balances.

 

[berg80]

I think they will reverse it. THe whole concept of "independent" agencies is antithetical to our system of checks and balances.

That's the opposite of the truth. You're getting good at gaslighting.

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good

 

[Rawley]

That's the opposite of the truth. You're getting good at gaslighting.

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good

So, to whom are they accountable? The "public?" How do we fire them if we don't like the job they are doing?

 

[berg80]

A federal judge repudiated President Donald Trump’s effort to remove the chair of the National Labor Relations Board, calling it an “illegal act” and “power grab” that misunderstands the limits of his authority.

“An American President is not a king — not even an ‘elected’ one,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell wrote Thursday in a 36-page opinion, “and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants … is not absolute, but may be constrained in appropriate circumstances.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/trump-wilcox-nlrb-reinstated-00216685

 

[berg80]

So, to whom are they accountable? The "public?" How do we fire them if we don't like the job they are doing?

• Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent establishing that Congress can put limits on presidential removal powers for agencies like the NLRB, is still good law that binds the court (“100 percent”).

They can be removed by the prez if it is established that they have in some way abused their position. But it needs to be documented.

 

[Rawley]

• Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent establishing that Congress can put limits on presidential removal powers for agencies like the NLRB, is still good law that binds the court (“100 percent”).

They can be removed by the prez if it is established that they have in some way abused their position. But it needs to be documented.

Which is why I think that case will be reversed. It's an agency in the Executive branch. If the employee is enacting policies that are antithetical to the policies of the President - the head of the Executive branch, the President needs to have to power to remove them. Again, otherwise, these people are accountable to no one, not congress, not the President, no one.

 

[Rogue AI]

That's the opposite of the truth. You're getting good at gaslighting.

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good

Hey buddy, there are only three branches of government and 'independent' isn't one of them. Humphrey Executor is unconstitutional trash.

 

[berg80]

Hey buddy, there are only three branches of government and 'independent' isn't one of them.

Your post is in the running for "Dumbest Post of the Week." But there's a lot of competition from your fellow trumples.

 

[Rogue AI]

Your post is in the running for "Dumbest Post of the Week." But there's a lot of competition from your fellow trumples.

Read the Constitution dipshit. The stupidity here is your constant lies, whining, and emotionally stunted outrage over losing an election. You and your ilk are a disgrace to the country.

 

[Delldude]

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good

Yet are selected in a partisan process.

 

[berg80]

Supreme Court Kills The Independent Agency. Trump Is King

The Supreme Court majority all but declared Thursday that it is ready to overturn a nearly century-old precedent meant to protect independent agencies from at-will firing by the President.

It’s the last brick to fall in the division between the President and the parts of the executive branch Congress created to be beyond his reach, turning the second branch of government into an all-powerful tool to be wielded by one man.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the three dissenting liberals, dispensed with the usual niceties to upbraid her conservative colleagues for bending to President Trump’s whims, and doing so in a two-page ruling on the emergency docket.

The case stems from Trump’s firing of members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, which he did knowing that it ran afoul of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey’s Executor. The administration has aimed to get the case before the Court, betting that there are finally enough conservative justices bought into the idea of a supreme presidency to let him axe the last wall protecting critical independent executive branch agencies. On Thursday, the Court overruled the lower courts that had reversed Trump’s firings in accordance with that Supreme Court precedent, hinting that the two agencies may not be protected from at-will removal.

“The impatience to get on with things — to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever) — must reveal how that eventual decision will go,” Kagan thundered, anticipating a future, final decision after the Court hears arguments on the merits.
Supreme Court Kills The Independent Agency. Trump Is King

Besides being in favor of reversing Roe, the audition phase of the selection process for trump nominating a SC justice included a belief in the unitary executive. Which is coming in handy as trump tries to solidify complete control over the executive branch in ways that previous designs were put in place to stop. And for good reason. They anticipated the malevolence of someone like Dotard.

 

[Delldude]

Supreme Court Kills The Independent Agency. Trump Is King

The Supreme Court majority all but declared Thursday that it is ready to overturn a nearly century-old precedent meant to protect independent agencies from at-will firing by the President.

It’s the last brick to fall in the division between the President and the parts of the executive branch Congress created to be beyond his reach, turning the second branch of government into an all-powerful tool to be wielded by one man.

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the three dissenting liberals, dispensed with the usual niceties to upbraid her conservative colleagues for bending to President Trump’s whims, and doing so in a two-page ruling on the emergency docket.

The case stems from Trump’s firing of members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, which he did knowing that it ran afoul of a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey’s Executor. The administration has aimed to get the case before the Court, betting that there are finally enough conservative justices bought into the idea of a supreme presidency to let him axe the last wall protecting critical independent executive branch agencies. On Thursday, the Court overruled the lower courts that had reversed Trump’s firings in accordance with that Supreme Court precedent, hinting that the two agencies may not be protected from at-will removal.

“The impatience to get on with things — to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever) — must reveal how that eventual decision will go,” Kagan thundered, anticipating a future, final decision after the Court hears arguments on the merits.
Supreme Court Kills The Independent Agency. Trump Is King

Besides being in favor of reversing Roe, the audition phase of the selection process for trump nominating a SC justice included a belief in the unitary executive. Which is coming in handy as trump tries to solidify complete control over the executive branch in ways that previous designs were put in place to stop. And for good reason. They anticipated the malevolence of someone like Dotard.

WINNING....

 

[Independent thinker]

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good—promoting the health, safety, and prosperity of all Americans and their communities. Housed in the executive branch, independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are staffed nearly exclusively by nonpartisan experts who help safeguard consumers from unsafe products, protect workers’ rights, enhance highway safety, and stop big banks from scamming people, among other purposes. The leaders of those agencies are generally selected by the president and the leaders of the minority party to ensure they are bipartisan, and these commissioners jointly consider agency actions. Once installed, commissioners are supposed to be insulated from day-to-day political influence, unlike appointees who run executive departments directly under the president’s control, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Beginning with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court for 90 years has upheld congressional requirements that a president can fire independent agency commissioners only for a serious reason, such as malfeasance or neglect of duties. Yet Humphrey’s Executor and cases that reinforced its ruling are now under attack by President Donald Trump’s administration, which flouted the law and summarily fired commissioners at multiple independent agencies without any legally required cause.
https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ys-executor-and-why-should-you-care-about-it/

trump's attempt to expand the powers of the prez beyond their current legal limits (one never knows what his SC will do since the conservatives have no respect for the Constitution) is the defining legal battle taking shape.

Most importantly with respect to trump's efforts to remove or marginalize those government employees and agencies assigned by Congress with the duty of executive branch oversight. trump's goal being the realization of the unitary executive theory.

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

“I recognize that for both sides, this court is merely a speed bump for you all to get to the Supreme Court,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee in Washington D.C., said Wednesday, adding: “The issue at stake is of extreme importance, given that the NLRB is far from the only multi-member, independent, executive branch agency with statutory removal protections. That’s why I’ve chosen to have this public hearing.”

The case stems from the unlawful firing without cause of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, who quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court. Her case, running parallel to other challenges of plainly illegal firings of members of independent agencies, is ultimately bound for the Supreme Court, as the Trump administration aims to get the justices to overturn current precedent that protects her from at-will firing.

The Trump DOJ is candid about that posture.

Judge Howell ticked through fundamental facts of the case:

• Both parties agree that Wilcox was not removed for malfeasance or neglect, the causes Congress permits her to be fired for (“correct,” said DOJ attorney Harry Graver);
• Wilcox was not given the notice or hearing the law demands (“correct”);
• The Justice Department does not argue that her removal was inconsistent with existing law (“we’re not relying on the statutory standard,” Graver agreed);
• Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent establishing that Congress can put limits on presidential removal powers for agencies like the NLRB, is still good law that binds the court (“100 percent”).

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

The only thing I care about is getting rid of woke/progressive democrats and we're doing that.

 

[berg80]

The only thing I care about is getting rid of woke/progressive democrats and we're doing that.

Beginning with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court for 90 years has upheld congressional requirements that a president can fire independent agency commissioners only for a serious reason, such as malfeasance or neglect of duties.

So you are in the camp of violating law, precedent, tradition, being just fine in order to demonize people serving in offices designed to have independence from the executive. Because you don't like their opinions.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The federal government’s independent agencies have been designed by Congress to work on behalf of the public good—promoting the health, safety, and prosperity of all Americans and their communities. Housed in the executive branch, independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, are staffed nearly exclusively by nonpartisan experts who help safeguard consumers from unsafe products, protect workers’ rights, enhance highway safety, and stop big banks from scamming people, among other purposes. The leaders of those agencies are generally selected by the president and the leaders of the minority party to ensure they are bipartisan, and these commissioners jointly consider agency actions. Once installed, commissioners are supposed to be insulated from day-to-day political influence, unlike appointees who run executive departments directly under the president’s control, such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Beginning with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court for 90 years has upheld congressional requirements that a president can fire independent agency commissioners only for a serious reason, such as malfeasance or neglect of duties. Yet Humphrey’s Executor and cases that reinforced its ruling are now under attack by President Donald Trump’s administration, which flouted the law and summarily fired commissioners at multiple independent agencies without any legally required cause.
https://www.americanprogress.org/ar...ys-executor-and-why-should-you-care-about-it/

trump's attempt to expand the powers of the prez beyond their current legal limits (one never knows what his SC will do since the conservatives have no respect for the Constitution) is the defining legal battle taking shape.

Most importantly with respect to trump's efforts to remove or marginalize those government employees and agencies assigned by Congress with the duty of executive branch oversight. trump's goal being the realization of the unitary executive theory.

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

“I recognize that for both sides, this court is merely a speed bump for you all to get to the Supreme Court,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee in Washington D.C., said Wednesday, adding: “The issue at stake is of extreme importance, given that the NLRB is far from the only multi-member, independent, executive branch agency with statutory removal protections. That’s why I’ve chosen to have this public hearing.”

The case stems from the unlawful firing without cause of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, who quickly filed a lawsuit in federal court. Her case, running parallel to other challenges of plainly illegal firings of members of independent agencies, is ultimately bound for the Supreme Court, as the Trump administration aims to get the justices to overturn current precedent that protects her from at-will firing.

The Trump DOJ is candid about that posture.

Judge Howell ticked through fundamental facts of the case:

• Both parties agree that Wilcox was not removed for malfeasance or neglect, the causes Congress permits her to be fired for (“correct,” said DOJ attorney Harry Graver);
• Wilcox was not given the notice or hearing the law demands (“correct”);
• The Justice Department does not argue that her removal was inconsistent with existing law (“we’re not relying on the statutory standard,” Graver agreed);
• Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent establishing that Congress can put limits on presidential removal powers for agencies like the NLRB, is still good law that binds the court (“100 percent”).

Federal Judge Poised To Block NLRB Firing Bristles At ‘Extreme’ Attempt To Expand Trump’s Power

Judges are not supposed to "bristle," at the actions of the duly elected president.

Presented sufficient proof, they are supposed to rule them unlawful, when they are.

Clearly, this activist judge was wrong, as the USSC overturned her decision in the case. Clearly, they did not see Humphrey's Executor as preventing Trump's action in this particular case.

Let Beryl go home and bristle about something else.

 

[lg325]

Independent Agencies are not immune from oversight or discipline.

 

[Independent thinker]

Beginning with Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court for 90 years has upheld congressional requirements that a president can fire independent agency commissioners only for a serious reason, such as malfeasance or neglect of duties.

So you are in the camp of violating law, precedent, tradition, being just fine in order to demonize people serving in offices designed to have independence from the executive. Because you don't like their opinions.

That's the same camp democrats have been in for 8 years.