Ketanji Brown Jackson Argues Presidents Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Fire Bureaucrats Running Independent Agencies — Justice Brett Kavanaugh Shreds Her Argument

 The oral arguments in the Supreme Court case Trump v. Slaughter, focusing on Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's defense of independent bureaucrats against President Trump's authority to dismiss them.

1. Background of the Case:

• The case addresses President Trump's decision to fire two Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

• Trump maintained that his actions were constitutional under Article II, granting him executive power.

• The removals led to a lawsuit for reinstatement, which was initially granted by a lower court.

2. Supreme Court's Involvement:

• The case reached the Supreme Court after the D. C. Circuit upheld the reinstatement of Slaughter.

• The Supreme Court issued a stay on the lower court's order, permitting Trump to maintain his firing while the case was reviewed.

3. Ketanji Brown Jackson's Defense:

• Justice Jackson argued that presidents should not have the authority to remove bureaucrats, asserting that these roles should be filled by experts rather than political appointees.

• She expressed concerns that presidential control over various independent agencies would lead to a "monarchical" system.

4. Areas of Concern:

• Jackson listed specific areas where she believed bureaucrats should operate independently of presidential influence, including:

• Transportation authorities

• Economic regulators

• The Federal Reserve

• Multimember agency boards

5. Arguments Against Presidential Control:

• Jackson argued that allowing a president to dismiss experts could undermine the effectiveness and impartiality of critical governmental functions.

• She posited that Congress had legitimate reasons to grant independence to these agencies to protect citizens' interests.

6. Justice Kavanaugh's Counterpoint:

• Justice Brett Kavanaugh posed a hypothetical about how an outgoing administration might deliberately fill independent agencies with non-removable appointees to sabotage future administrations from the opposing party.

• Kavanaugh questioned whether Congress could essentially render the presidency powerless by creating numerous independent agencies.

The oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter highlighted a significant ideological clash in the Supreme Court regarding the balance of power between elected officials and independent bureaucratic agencies. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's defense of bureaucratic independence suggests a preference for minimizing presidential influence, while Justice Kavanaugh raised critical concerns on the implications of such independence for future presidential powers. The ultimate decision by the Supreme Court will likely have profound effects on the relationship between the executive branch and independent agencies in the U. S. government.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/12/ketanji-brown-jackson-argues-presidents-shouldnt-be-allowed/