WASHINGTON, D.C. — The non-profit, non-partisan tech policy think tank with a mission to “chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology” has asked the nation’s highest judicial body to keep the White House’s hands off of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the FCC.
This sees the Berin Szoka-led TechFreedom file an amicus brief tied to Trump v. Slaughter, a case involving former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
At issue: Can President Trump remove Slaughter without cause, challenging the constitutionality of her “for-cause” removal protection? The case originated from Trump’s attempt to fire Slaughter in March, which she sued to prevent. A district court ruled in her favor, but the Supreme Court issued a stay in September, allowing the removal to proceed while the Court hears the case, which is scheduled for December.
Chiming in on the case, TechFreedom urged the Supreme Court to maintain the independence of the Federal Trade Commission and other traditional multimember agencies — including the Federal Communications Commission.
As TechFreedom sees it, the President flouted both the FTC Act and Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 case that has long protected the leaders of multimember agencies from at-will removal.
The administration is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor and bless the firings.
“Handing this President unchecked removal power would be utterly irresponsible,” said Corbin K. Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation at TechFreedom. “This administration is undermining our republic in ways large and small. Permitting the President to go on a firing spree would further destabilize the government and corrode the rule of law. He has already hollowed out some agencies to the point of losing a quorum, and he has made clear he would like to fire officials at the Federal Reserve—an act that could trigger a financial crisis. We shouldn’t be handing matches to an arsonist.
“Upholding Congress’s power to limit removal does not require judicial innovation or activism,” Barthold continued. “It requires judicial restraint—respect for precedent and continuity in the law. Humphrey’s Executor comfortably governs modern agencies. The decision aligns with the system of checks and balances in our Constitution, and it has proved workable for nearly a century, offering a clear line between permissible multimember commissions and impermissible novel structures. The Court has signaled that it is going to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, but it should reconsider and reverse course.”
