The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A Rendezvous With Humphrey
The Justices have had plenty of time to think about how to resolve Humphrey's Executor and should not punt.
Very soon, the Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether Humphrey's Executor should be overruled. Critics often assert that the Justices should not decide important questions on the emergency docket. Indeed, some Justices said these sorts of disputes are better resolved in the orderly process on the merits docket, as if "percolation" matters anymore.
I don't think this rationale holds up for Humphrey's Executor. Since Seila Law, everyone has been on notice that Humphrey's Executor was on life support. As we learned in Janus, parties should have taken notice that Abood was put on a death watch. Ditto for the Lemon test.
I seriously doubt that the members of the Supreme Court have not considered what to do with Humphrey's Executor. All of the arguments for and against Humphrey's Executor have been vetted for nearly a century. It is time.
Whatever the Court does here, it should not simply punt because the issue arises on the shadow docket. The nation is currently divided about whether the President can remove members of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, and a jumble of more acronyms. Decide the issue, and move on. Indeed, I expect the emergency docket will implode over the next few months. If all of the national TROs and preliminary injunctions ripen to timely appeals, the Court will become overwhelmed with deadlines.
My previous posts on the issue are here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If the low odds side prevails and Humphrey's survives, will Blackman blame the coastal judges, Justice Jackson's magic necklace, or Justice Barrett's disloyalty?
Today's Pearls Before Swine comic has application to VC commentariat.
IMO, the Court hasn't so much been letting issues "percolate", as much as it has let them "fester".
Cries for the Court when the lower courts don't agree with his priors.
Cries for the popular vote when the courts doesn't agree with his priors.
Cries for Thomas when the rest of the Court doesn't agree with his priors.
Doesn't think he's outcome oriented.
I agree. For anything but the most minor issues, the Court should do its job and tell the people what law they live under. Take abortion and gay marriage previously---we have all heard the arguments and know the issues. There was no need to play secret squirrel about it.
Guns are the current issue where they do this. It has been 17 years since Heller told us that "there will be time enough" for the Court to tell us what they really think about various gun regulations. But because of its own arrogance, the Court will let at least one generation die, and young people move into middle age until we graciously get their rulings on these issues that are squarely presented--and were squarely presented then.
Another one is the Lopez/Morrison commerce clause issue. They jumped right into that, laid down a principle, and then ran for the hills never to be heard again.
If the Court is going to play a major role in people's lives, it is their duty to tell us what the law is, not to speak like a fortune cookie and leave it to the random game of chance based on which federal circuit one lives.
When the New Deal Court approved an expanded administrative federal government, it approved some Congressional limits on the President’s power over that government.
Traditionally the right wanted a smaller federal government and more diffuse power.
It’s interesting how the winds have changed, and Professor Blackman with them. The MAGA right has no interest in decentralization or reduced federal power. Its focus is on increasing the President’s control over that power. It wants to get rid of the limits on the President without reducing the overall federal executive power. Indeed it reads that power very expansively.
It wants the very unitary centralized one-man-rule state that the right’s previous goal was to avoid. Interesting that it continues to mouth some traditional right-wing doctrines in service of the new goal, much as the IngSoc folks kept similar superficial touches like wearing jeans and calling each other comrade even as they openly characterized the proles as idiots who deserve to be exploited.
Wow. TDS does do damage. Expansion of federal power is literally the opposite of the Trump agenda. Cut government waste, reduce the federal workforce, return education dollars and control to the states. Now, if you want an example of a grossly intrusive government, that would be the corrupt Biden regime.
By that standard, Mobutu Sese Seko had an even more lean and efficient government, with even deeper cuts in wasteful government services to the public.
Were his people freer as a result?
Under our system of government, how much the federal government spends on any given subject is strictly up to Congress. It is none of Mr. Trump’s damn business. Mr. Trump not only isn’t doing, he can’t do any of the shit you claim he’s doing it. All he can do, and all he is doing, is fuck with our government to mess up its workings. The rest is just bullshit talk.
If you had praised Hitler for making the trains run on time, he at least actually did that.
Of course, if Trump issued an executive order ordering the sun to rise in the west and set in the east, or proclaiming that Canada is now a US state, you’d probably gush at the great things he’s accomplished.
I feel obliged to note that it was Mussolini, not Hitler, and no, he didn't actually make the trains run on time. Also, how much money Congress spends is Trump's business. He is required to take care that spending authorized by Congress "shall be faithfully executed".
And what part of the Constitution allows the administrative state to be independent?
What part doesn't?
The part where all executive power is vested in the President?
I don't see all in the text.
Ever think about why you had to add it?
Yes, though it's a mistake to say "the President" rather than "Trump." These same people had tantrums over anything and everything Biden did, from DACA to student loan forgiveness to vaccine mandates. (Hell, these people even argued that Biden shouldn't be able to impose vaccine mandates on the military, even though there's venerable precedent for such CinC authority.)
We shall see how far the current wrongheaded Roberts Court's jurisprudence continues, though a total upheaval of New Deal precedents on this topic seems a bit doubtful. We shall see.
It would not surprise me if they figure out a way to artificially protect certain agencies from Trump-like power.
Myers was a 6-3 opinion with three dissents, including Brandeis and Holmes. A former president having an exaggerated view of executive power, picking and choosing to promote it, is unsurprising. Humphrey's was unanimous and written by a conservative justice. I guess he would be declared not properly courageous by some people.
"Humphrey's was unanimous and written by a conservative justice. "
90 years ago. Decades of seeing GOP goals frustrated by entrenched left wing bureaucrats.
Humphrey’s FTC was actually frustrating FDR’s New Deal, and the Supreme Court allowed it to do so by preventing FRD from removing Humphrey without cause. So, an opposite outcome in Humphrey’s Executor would have actually helped advance the New Deal.
New Deal legislation includes many agencies in which the executive does not have the general power to remove people without cause.
The opinion furthers the general goals of the New Deal.
Does it? If President AOC wants to implement the Green New Deal via aggressive rule making, she would be frustrated by a bunch of Trump holdover appointments she couldn’t just remove. Humphrey’s Executor was decided the way it was precisely because the Court was skeptical of FDR and the New Deal. Only later, after much political pressure and turnover on the Court, did it start to play ball.
The New Deal involved creating agencies that would have some independence by usage of limits on removal.
The general New Deal system puts in place some burdens on any presidency. There are limits on agency rulemaking, for instance, that might be somewhat burdensome on an imagined President Andy Beshear or whoever it might be.
Well, strictly speaking, he kind of had good cause to remove Humphrey by the time SCOTUS had ruled.
The “New Deal” that passed Congress, like most legislation, was somewhat of a compromise in which some (not many but some) of Roovelt’s goals were blunted and some checks put on him. This part of the package may hace been more part of the checks than Roosevelt’s original plan.
Precedent matters, until it does not
There is value in stability, but it pales to the cost of damage to the Constitution. Over time we have seen that damage, and it is due for overturning.
Some precedents, like basic free speech principles, still are valid.
Basic principles involving giving Congress the discretion to create offices depending on the needs of the day are one of them.
Republicans control the government now. If they want to change the rules for agencies, they can try.
What degree of damage to something do you think justifies destroying it in order to save it? None for a village, none for a Constitution.
Most of Trump’s beefs have nothing to do with the Constitution. They’re just policy preferences. Claiming they have anything to do with the Constitution is just an excuse to justify subverting the Constitution to impose those policy oreferences.
It would be a disaster unless the court rules that the "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" phrase means that the Congress can put limits on the President unless those limits directly contradicts an enumerated power of the President.
That "The executive Power shall be vested in a President" is a general statement, not one of absolute power.
Who can practice executive power, independently of the President?
The courts. Cabinet members.
That's an odd construction of that clause. Because there are inferior officers not worthy of a full presidential appointment and senate confirmation does not mean that they are outside the normal structure of government.
Take the heads of departments. So if the Secretary of State, for example, is empowered to create an office, the President is not the ultimate supervisor of that person? Even though the Secretary of State reports to the President, and that inferior officer reports to the SOS, the President is somehow outside that chain? What evidence do you have to support such a novel structure?
The executive power of the United States consists solely of the power that the Constitution directly grants the executive plus the power Congress grants him. The President has no other power, the United States has no other executive power, than that.
While there’s the equivalent of a necessary and proper clause, it’s limited. Claiming the “executive power” implies the power to do anything the President pleases is no different in kind from claiming that “fundamental rights” include the right to do anything the Supreme Court pleases.
They’re President has the power to pardon and the power to act as commander in chief because the Constitution has that power.
Well, the judicial power is vested in the supreme court of the united states. The Supreme Court decided Humphrey’s Executor. What’s your beef?
Can’t you read English? Why don’t the words “the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in a supreme court…” mean what they say? If the Supreme Court makes a judicial decision, why isn’t that that?
It seems to me that the argument that “the executive power of the United States shall be vested in the president…” implies that an activist President can do anything he considers “executive” in nature could with equal legitimacy be applied to the parallel judicial vesting clause and made to imply that judges can do anything they consider “judicial” in nature and hence an activist judiciary has pretty much the power to do anything it damn well pleases.
I don’t see why one argument is better or worse than or even especially different from the other.
This might be an interesting side debate, but I don't believe that anyone is disputing that these offices in question are executive in nature.
Obviously Trump wants to provoke this confrontation, but if the goal was really just To Fire The Evil Liberal Communist Atheist Homosexual DEI Hires, he could have just invented a pretext of inefficiency, provided adequate notice, and fired them pretextually. Peek at the data to see what metric the data looks worst in (caseload, staff expenses, whatever), identify that metric as a point of failure, warn of further consequences, switch metrics a few months later, warn again, and then drop the axe. And in the end, it'd be done.
Courts would have dodged the bullet. They're not going to try to put together a longer term paper trail or second guess the metrics chosen. It would have taken another six months or a year versus just firing them, but in the end it'd be done.
So it's difficult to take serious the claim that this route is _necessary_ to accomplish the policy goal rather than to try to entrench the unitary executive theory. Again, I get that that's the point, but let's just call a spade a spade instead of pretending this is actually about substantive policy at any one of the agencies.
The part where all executive power is vested in the President?