The Slaughter case was decided in a 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump, while the Cook case resulted in a 5-4 decision that Cook can continue her tenure as a Fed governor.
minute read
President Donald Trump reacted to a set of Supreme Court rulings on Monday, in which the court rejected his attempt to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook while also granting him authority to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
The Slaughter case was decided in a 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump, while the Cook case resulted in a 5-4 decision that Cook can continue her tenure as a Fed governor.
Trump said that the case with Slaughter was a “big win” that confirmed “Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II” of the Constitution.
“This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s. It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he added.
With the Cook case, Trump said that the lawsuit “was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis” and that the administration will “take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America.” Cook had been accused of mortgage fraud as the reason for her firing.
Both decisions were authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling in the Trump v Slaughter case overturned a 1935 Supreme Court ruling called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which enshrined restrictions on the president’s power to fire FTC members. The ruling in the Slaughter case establishes a win for the theory that the executive should have complete control over the executive branch.
“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote in the Slaughter ruling. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
In the Trump v Cook case, the president was blocked from firing Cook over mortgage fraud allegations. The ruling said that Trump’s attempt to remove Cook was blocked, saying that she was not given due process under federal law.
“Under the Court’s precedents, Cook was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond before her termination. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, it gave Governors a set term in office and permitted removal only ‘for cause.’ That form of tenure—a term of years limited only by removal ‘for cause’—carried with it a settled interpretation at common law, one that the Court had expressly adopted just a decade before.”
He later added, “Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her may a final decision be made. And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges.”
With both rulings at the same time, the Cook decision created something of an exception with governors of the Fed as opposed to other agencies, focusing on the Fed’s history of independence from the executive branch, unlike other agencies that are within the scope of the executive.
“Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design,” Roberts wrote in the decision. The ruling, however, does not bar Trump from trying to remove Cook again, and he can pursue the option again if he takes additional steps.
Roberts added in the ruling that if the Trump administration were correct to fire Cook it “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
The Slaughter case was decided in a 6-3 ruling in favor of Trump, while the Cook case resulted in a 5-4 decision that Cook can continue her tenure as a Fed governor.
Trump said that the case with Slaughter was a “big win” that confirmed “Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II” of the Constitution.
“This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s. It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” he added.
With the Cook case, Trump said that the lawsuit “was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis” and that the administration will “take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America.” Cook had been accused of mortgage fraud as the reason for her firing.
Both decisions were authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The ruling in the Trump v Slaughter case overturned a 1935 Supreme Court ruling called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which enshrined restrictions on the president’s power to fire FTC members. The ruling in the Slaughter case establishes a win for the theory that the executive should have complete control over the executive branch.
“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote in the Slaughter ruling. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
In the Trump v Cook case, the president was blocked from firing Cook over mortgage fraud allegations. The ruling said that Trump’s attempt to remove Cook was blocked, saying that she was not given due process under federal law.
“Under the Court’s precedents, Cook was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond before her termination. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, it gave Governors a set term in office and permitted removal only ‘for cause.’ That form of tenure—a term of years limited only by removal ‘for cause’—carried with it a settled interpretation at common law, one that the Court had expressly adopted just a decade before.”
He later added, “Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her may a final decision be made. And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges.”
With both rulings at the same time, the Cook decision created something of an exception with governors of the Fed as opposed to other agencies, focusing on the Fed’s history of independence from the executive branch, unlike other agencies that are within the scope of the executive.
“Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design,” Roberts wrote in the decision. The ruling, however, does not bar Trump from trying to remove Cook again, and he can pursue the option again if he takes additional steps.
Roberts added in the ruling that if the Trump administration were correct to fire Cook it “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
Sign in to comment
Powered by The Post Millennial CMS™ Comments
Join and support independent free thinkers!
We’re independent and can’t be cancelled. The establishment media is increasingly dedicated to divisive cancel culture, corporate wokeism, and political correctness, all while covering up corruption from the corridors of power. The need for fact-based journalism and thoughtful analysis has never been greater. When you support The Post Millennial, you support freedom of the press at a time when it's under direct attack. Join the ranks of independent, free thinkers by supporting us today for as little as $1.
Remind me next month
To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy
Comments