Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that the president of the United States should not be able to fire government experts such as scientists, doctors, economists, and PhDs, and she claimed it is “not in the best interest” of American citizens.
During oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter, while talking to U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Jackson said she did “not understand” why “agencies aren’t answering to Congress.” Jackson pointed out that “Congress established them and can eliminate them.”
The oral arguments come after the Supreme Court, in September, allowed President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the former Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
“I really don’t understand why the agencies aren’t answering to Congress,” Jackson said. “Congress established them and can eliminate them. Congress funds them, and can stop. So, to the extent that we’re concerned that there’s some sort of entity that is out of control and has no control, I guess I don’t understand that argument.”
“We would say the Constitutional actor on the hypothetical who is controlling these agencies is Congress, and that is a huge separation of powers,” Sauer argued, as Jackson informed him that she understood.
Jackson continued to point out that Sauer’s arguments “seem to revolve around” the idea that there is “some kind of thing happening with the independent agency, that the reason why the president needs to control it is because they don’t answer to anybody.”
Jackson continued:
I guess I have a very different view of the dangers, and real-world consequences of your position than what you explored with Justice Kavanaugh. My understanding was that independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by non-partisan experts, that Congress is saying that expertise matters — with respect to aspects of the economy, and transportation, and the various independent agencies that we have. So, having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists, and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything, is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States. These issues should not be in presidential control. So, can you speak to me about the danger of allowing, in these various areas, the president to actually control the Transportation Board and potentially the Federal Reserve, and all these other independent agencies. In these particular areas, we would like to have independence, we don’t want the president controlling. I guess what I don’t understand from your overarching argument is why that determination of Congress — which makes perfect sense given its duty to protect the people of the United States, why that is subjugated to a concern about the president not being able to control everything.
According to SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court “signaled that it was likely to strike down a federal law that restricts the president’s ability to fire members of the” FTC.