Dem
47
GOP
53
Another day, another couple of wins for Donald Trump, courtesy of his six friends on the Supreme Court.
First up, the Supremes have, at least for now, allowed Trump to re-fire FTC commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. Slaughter was removed from the FTC by Trump, along with the other Democratic commissioner on the commission, and then was reinstated by a lower-court judge. That lower-court judge's ruling is now on hold, which means Slaughter is again eligible for unemployment.
This was yet another shadow docket decision, so yesterday's result is not necessarily revelatory when it comes to the final dispensation of the case. That said, the issue here is a pretty big deal, and the final decision by SCOTUS could be very consequential. At the moment, the president cannot fire Senate-approved appointees to boards and commissions like the FTC, except with cause. Trump's cause for firing Slaughter was "I sez so." If the justices sustain him, then he'll be going after Jerome Powell and other members of the Federal Reserve next. Meanwhile, hundreds of positions that Congress very clearly intended to insulate from the ebbs and flows of politics would instantly become patronage jobs.
The other Trump accommodation, meanwhile, is that the Court agreed to hear two major cases related to Trump's tariffs, and to do so on an expedited timeline. It is not too far removed to say that the Supremes will basically be addressing the same question as in the FTC case: When it comes to the existence of a national emergency, is a Trump declaration that an emergency exists because "I sez so" adequate? Again, this would clearly be subverting the intent of Congress, which granted these emergency powers to presidents for use in case of emergencies, not for use whenever they feel like it.
Thus far, as we've noted several times, the Supreme Court has been very accommodating to Trump, and has sided with him more than 90% of the time on these "emergency" matters. However, nearly all of their decisions have been about temporary things—basically, whether to allow lower courts' decisions to stand while the process plays out. Pretty soon, SCOTUS is going to have to make some substantive, precedent-setting decisions. And, more often than not, Trump's position is broadly unpopular, and involves a clear encroachment on Congressional prerogatives. We will soon see how Chief Justice John Roberts & Co. feel about those stakes, and the tariff cases may be our first indication of how they will play their hand. (Z)