Ketanji Brown Jackson Questions Attorney on Congressional Agencies' Role in Trump v. Slaughter

The 'Real Point' of the Argument

• 🎯 Respondent attorney Amit Agarwal's core argument is that historical precedent and court interpretations, including Humphrey, establish a background rule for Congressional agencies.
• 💡 Agarwal emphasizes that the burden is on the government to prove a constitutional problem with this established framework, rather than him needing to present a novel theory.

Historical Precedent and Agency Function

• 🏛️ The argument hinges on the 90-year history of multi-member agencies and their reliance on established interpretations of law.
• ⚖️ Agarwal cites the FTC Act, a 111-year-old statute, as an example of a law that has been consistently upheld and followed by presidents since 1935.
• 🚫 He argues that abandoning over 200 years of precedent and history would require a compelling new theory from the opposing side.

Agency Powers and Executive Functions

• 📜 The discussion references Humphrey to distinguish between an agency exercising executive functions and constitutional executive power.
• 🔑 It's argued that agencies can engage in quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers while still performing some executive functions, without necessarily being classified as purely executive agencies.
• 🔍 Agarwal states there is no historical court case in over two centuries holding that a single layer of for-cause removal protection cannot apply to a principal officer of an agency wielding civil enforcement functions.