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

[80zephyr]

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.

​

Of course its not because they believe its the law, right?

 

[Rawley]

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.

Thank God. One huge reason for the growth of the swamp in DC are huge agencies that are accountable to no one.

 

[berg80]

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.

I just read an interesting article in the NYT on the origins of the Humphrey's Executor case.

For Landmark Test of Executive Power, Echoes of a 1930s Supreme Court Battle​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/supreme-court-humphrey-roosevelt.html

It goes back to 1933 when FDR tried to fire a member of the FTC, William Humphrey, who refused FDR's demand that he resign. Humphrey died before the case went to the SC but the executor for the estate pursued it. The Court correctly found for "Humphrey's executor" unanimously. A precedent that has stood for over 90 years.

The request for him to step down “for purely political reasons” violated the law, Mr. Humphrey wrote. If a president could fire agency leaders, he said, “the independence, the purpose, character and value of all independent commissions will be destroyed.”

The president tried once more to cajole him.

“You will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission, and, frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence,” he wrote on Aug. 31.

Mr. Humphrey remained unmoved.

On Oct. 7, Mr. Roosevelt fired him.

FDR's rationale has a familiar ring to it. He wanted the people he wanted regardless of the statute protecting employees of independent agencies. Humphrey felt...... it was “unthinkable” to him that Congress would want leaders of independent agencies to be “in a position where their terms of office would be subject to the caprice of the man who happens, by the chance of politics, to occupy the White House.”

Humphrey, and the SC, were right. FDR was wrong. Some agencies were meant to be independent from executive overreach and Congress has the authority to protect them.

But for the Court's conservatives, who have a unitary view of all encompassing executive power, one the Founders rejected, law and precedent are mere annoyances to be steamrolled.

 

[80zephyr]

My wife worked for the USDA. When a president from a different party was elected, all of the executive people were let go, and the new presidents party got the jobs.

 

[berg80]

My wife worked for the USDA. When a president from a different party was elected, all of the executive people were let go, and the new presidents party got the jobs.

Fascinating. What does that have to do with the legal precedent established in the Humphrey's Executor case that Congress could pass laws shielding independent regulators from being fired by the president for no reason — a precedent that has stood for 90 years?

 

[80zephyr]

Fascinating. What does that have to do with the legal precedent established in the Humphrey's Executor case that Congress could pass laws shielding independent regulators from being fired by the president for no reason — a precedent that has stood for 90 years?

So the FTC falls under control of the executive branch but the president does not control who gets hired or fired?

No thanks.

 

[Anathema]

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

When the Judiciary and Legidlature fail to do their jobs, or do them incorrectly, it is up to the Executive Branch to assume as much power as necessary to return the country to its proper order.

 

[berg80]

So the FTC falls under control of the executive branch but the president does not control who gets hired or fired?

No thanks.

He can fire members for justified cause. Not simply because he wants to appoint lackeys who will do his bidding. That's the law as it was always intended to be.

 

[Seymour Flops]

If a Chair of the Federal Trade Commission openly opposes the President's policies in regards to the agency's mission, or has a history of opposing those policies, should the president be able to terminate them and appoint another?

Cite court cases if you wish, but it appears that Humphrey's Executor argues that no, the president cannot do that, but that Siela vs. Law says yes:

• Key Holding: The Court determined that the President must be able to remove the head of a single-director independent agency at will, as concentrating significant executive power in one person insulated from presidential oversight clashed with the constitutional structure.
• Agency Status: The Court also held that the unconstitutional removal provision was severable from the rest of the Dodd-Frank Act. This meant the CFPB itself could continue to operate and enforce laws, but its director would now serve "at will" of the President, who could fire them for any reason.

The question is what do you think should be the rule?

If a President is in opposition to one of the executive agencies, the most Democratic facing rule would be that the President can fire the head who set those policies if that person is unable to change the policies to suit the mandate of the executive chosen by the voters (by the electors if you will).

I don't believe that voters would ever support a system in which they get to elect the president, but that president has his authority usurped by unelected agency heads appointed by previous presidents. Such a system could only passed by Congress as part of a far larger bill, such as Dodd Frank, which created the CFPB.

 

[Hafar1014]

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

Trump is correct the democrats have packed the government with agencies that support only their beliefs and act in defiance of the will of the people in elections. Trump is correct to remove as many if not all and the wasteful agencies they manage.

 

[sartre play]

You will never talk me out the need for a balance of power. no dictators, no one person rule.
Not one single living human being knows everything. about anything.

 

[berg80]

but that Siela vs. Law says yes:

Remind me, when was Seila vs. Law decided?

The Court recognized that the President may generally remove officers at will. However, the Court stated that there were two exceptions to this rule. First, the President's removal power may be constrained by Congress if the officer in question is a member of an agency that shares similar characteristics to the Federal Trade Commission as discussed in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). Second, Congress may constrain the President's removal power over "inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking" role as discussed in Morrison v. Olson (1988). The Court declined to extend the exceptions to "an independent agency led by a single director and vested with significant executive power."

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rogue AI]

I just read an interesting article in the NYT on the origins of the Humphrey's Executor case.

For Landmark Test of Executive Power, Echoes of a 1930s Supreme Court Battle​

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/supreme-court-humphrey-roosevelt.html

It goes back to 1933 when FDR tried to fire a member of the FTC, William Humphrey, who refused FDR's demand that he resign. Humphrey died before the case went to the SC but the executor for the estate pursued it. The Court correctly found for "Humphrey's executor" unanimously. A precedent that has stood for over 90 years.

The request for him to step down “for purely political reasons” violated the law, Mr. Humphrey wrote. If a president could fire agency leaders, he said, “the independence, the purpose, character and value of all independent commissions will be destroyed.”

The president tried once more to cajole him.

“You will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission, and, frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence,” he wrote on Aug. 31.

Mr. Humphrey remained unmoved.

On Oct. 7, Mr. Roosevelt fired him.

FDR's rationale has a familiar ring to it. He wanted the people he wanted regardless of the statute protecting employees of independent agencies. Humphrey felt...... it was “unthinkable” to him that Congress would want leaders of independent agencies to be “in a position where their terms of office would be subject to the caprice of the man who happens, by the chance of politics, to occupy the White House.”

Humphrey, and the SC, were right. FDR was wrong. Some agencies were meant to be independent from executive overreach and Congress has the authority to protect them.

But for the Court's conservatives, who have a unitary view of all encompassing executive power, one the Founders rejected, law and precedent are mere annoyances to be steamrolled.

Humphery's is completely and utterly unconstitutional at it's core. There are three branches of government and 'independent' isn't one of them. The very notion the executive does not control every agency within the executive branch is ridiculous.

 

[80zephyr]

He can fire members for justified cause. Not simply because he wants to appoint lackeys who will do his bidding. That's the law as it was always intended to be.

You do not give control of a branch of government without the leader of that branch being able to do his job.

 

[berg80]

You do not give control of a branch of government without the leader of that branch being able to do his job.

The prez's job is to run the country for the benefit of the citizenry, not himself.

Trump Wants Complete Control. Will the Supreme Court Hand It to Him?​

On Monday the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that will decide whether to grant the president, for the first time in American history, the power to fire the heads of virtually all independent agencies at will. This would be a vast transfer of power from Congress to the president.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the president any such power, and nearly a century ago, the court unanimously rejected an argument that the president possessed it. Today’s Republican-appointed justices appear to be firmly under the sway of an atextual and ahistoric theory — the unitary executive theory — that demands complete presidential control over essentially every government agency and insists that the power to fire agency heads at will is an indispensable part of such control.

Congress has made a range of choices when it comes to creating, structuring and empowering federal agencies; some have been given a degree of independence from the president. Giving a president complete control would have a profound impact on how our government functions and the ability of these agencies to do work that touches the lives of practically every American. It could undermine, in tangible and immediate ways, agencies’ ability to safeguard consumers’ privacy, ensure the rights of workers and unions, minimize the hazards posed by ordinary household products and more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/opinion/trump-supreme-court-agencies.html

As recent scholarship demonstrates, however, this utilitarian approach to removal also explains why some statutes enacted during the Founding era declined to give the President unfettered removal power. Where expansive notions of presidential authority conflicted with the imperatives of good government, early Congresses (uncontroversially) sided with the latter. For example, certain statutes insulated early financial regulators from removal entirely on the grounds that those regulators required stability in their jobs and insulation from political manipulation. Other early statutes vested removal authority in actors other than the President, such as the courts. And for officers involved in the delicate job of managing the money supply—inspecting imports, collecting taxes, coining money, delivering the mail, and others—criminal prosecution was frequently the preferred mode of removal.
Two important conclusions follow from recent scholarship’s understanding of removal at the Founding. First, although the President has always exercised considerable removal power, that power was not unfettered: it was circumscribed by law, including, at times, by the requirement that officials could only be removed for cause. Second, and relatedly, removal has not been treated as a settled feature of executive power emanating from the Constitution; rather, it has functioned as a management tool deployed by Congress to ensure an honest and effective administration.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-332/384548/20251114134357642_25-332%20Amici%20Brief%20for%20Profs%20Katz%20and%20Gienapp.pdf

As originally constructed, the independent agencies in question were given independence from complete executive branch control for the very reason we are seeing play out. To prevent the prez from corrupting them as this prez has corrupted all agencies of the government under his control.

 

[berg80]

Of course its not because they believe its the law, right?

On May 27, 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Roosevelt, upholding the law limiting the president’s removal power. As the court reasoned, the F.T.C. was, by design, nonpartisan, “charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law” and headed by members “called upon to exercise the trained judgment of a body of experts.”

In its decision, the court said a rule that such commissioners served “at the mere will of the president” would undermine congressional design; it would “thwart, in large measure, the very ends which Congress sought to realize by definitely fixing the term of office.”

 

[80zephyr]

On May 27, 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Roosevelt, upholding the law limiting the president’s removal power. As the court reasoned, the F.T.C. was, by design, nonpartisan, “charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law” and headed by members “called upon to exercise the trained judgment of a body of experts.”

In its decision, the court said a rule that such commissioners served “at the mere will of the president” would undermine congressional design; it would “thwart, in large measure, the very ends which Congress sought to realize by definitely fixing the term of office.”

All unconstitutional. One branch of government has no right limiting another branch. Can the executive branch limit the legislative branch?

 

[80zephyr]

The prez's job is to run the country for the benefit of the citizenry, not himself.

Did you feel the same way when Obama purged the military of anyone who didn't agree with him?

 

[berg80]

All unconstitutional. One branch of government has no right limiting another branch. Can the executive branch limit the legislative branch?

Ever hear of the principle of checks and balances? The foundation on which our constitutional republic lies.

 

[berg80]

Mr. Ferguson is transforming the F.T.C., an independent agency that aims to protect consumers and police corporate power, into an enforcer of President Trump's social and political agendas, according to more than a dozen former colleagues, antitrust experts and acquaintances. With investigations and hearings that inform the country’s policies on culture war issues, critics said Mr. Ferguson was testing the agency’s regulatory limits.

Many of the agency’s chairs have mirrored the political priorities of the presidents who appointed them. But Mr. Ferguson has made his connection unusually explicit, referring to the agency as the “Trump-Vance F.T.C.” In doing so, the 39-year-old could imperil the agency’s appearance of political impartiality when bringing lawsuits, critics said, making them harder to win. Some fear Mr. Ferguson could use his regulatory might to pursue Mr. Trump’s foes or to crack down on causes important to the left.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/08/technology/ftc-andrew-ferguson-regulator.html

The authority to fire agency members for the sole purpose of replacing them with loyalist hacks in order to enact the prez's politicized policy agenda is exactly why Congress gave the agencies protection from what Dotard is trying to do.