Chief Justice Roberts Questions Reliance on 'Vanishingly Insignificant' Case in Trump v. Slaughter

Oral Arguments in Trump v. Slaughter

• 🏛️ Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Respondent attorney Amit Agarwal's primary reliance on the case Humphrey's Executor v. United States during oral arguments for Trump v. Slaughter.
• 💡 Roberts characterized Humphrey's Executor as a "dried husk" whose described agency powers were "vanishingly insignificant" and not representative of the modern FTC.

Constitutional Challenges and Precedents

• ⚖️ The discussion centered on the constitutionality of single-layer for-cause removal protections for multi-member commissions.
• 🚀 Two other cases, Weiner v. United States and Free Enterprise Fund, were cited, where the court unanimously found that such protections do not offend the separation of powers, even for agencies with significant executive authority.
• 🧐 Agarwal argued that Weiner, while a "protege of Humphrey's," involved adjudicative authority, questioning if it's in a direct line from Humphrey's or a different situation.

Executive vs. Adjudicatory Powers

• 🧩 Petitioner's theory suggests any officer acting outside Articles I and III is exercising executive power, which would encompass commissioners of the War Claims Commission and the Federal Reserve.
• 🔍 A distinction was raised regarding adjuncts to judicial authority, potentially covering courts, and whether adjudicatory functions should be an exception.
• 🛠️ The FTC, in cases like Axon Enterprise v. FTC, acts similarly to a district court, finding facts and reaching conclusions of law, blurring the lines between executive and adjudicatory roles.

Separation of Powers and Removal Protections

• 📈 In Free Enterprise Fund, the court considered executive authority wielded by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, yet still found single-layer for-cause removal protection constitutionally permissible.
• ⏳ The argument was made that there is no single case in over 200 years that has struck down the type of removal protection at issue in the current case.