Supreme Court Stays Order Forcing Trump to Reinstate Fired Labor Regulators
Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) cannot have their jobs back as their case moves through the courts.
The Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump a stay on an order forcing him to reinstate to reinstate Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as the two women fight for their jobs in the courts.
The vote went 6-3. SCOTUS wrote:
The stay reflects our judgment that the Government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power. But we do not ultimately decide in this posture whether the NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument. The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.
—
A stay is appropriate to avoid the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement of officers during the pendency of this litigation.
Harris and Wilcox claimed a stay would “implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee.”
The majority wrote: “We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”
OK, first of all, does anyone believe the Federal Reserve is an independent agency? I mean, really!?
How about we just end the Federal Reserve!? That would solve everything!
If the president appoints your leader or others to your agency you are not independent.
The Dissent
The three liberal females penned a seven page dissent…for a two page order.
I do agree with Kagan on one thing. Why treat the Federal Reserve differently than these other so-called independent agencies:
I am glad to hear it, and do not doubt the majority’s intention to avoid imperiling the Fed. But then, today’s order poses a puzzle. For the Federal Reserve’s independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC, and so on—which is to say it rests largely on Humphrey’s.
If the Federal Reserve has that much power then it needs to be dismantled and burned to the ground…as I said above.
But it wasn’t out of the blue because as I also said above, Wilcox and Harris both argued that a stay a stay would “implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee.”
Wilcox and Harris forced the hands of the majority.
But if anything, Kagan’s dissent provides us more ammunition not to just end the fed but to the argument that these agencies are not independent.
Therefore, we have learned once again that less is more. Sometimes, the more you talk (or write) the more you weaken your argument.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I hope Kagan retires soon, to spend her golden years around friends and family who wont mutter “idiot” under their breath whenever she speaks…
doge the f out of these anti capitalist >>>>>anti freedom agencies
it basically makes a union out of all businesses
Can someone please edit this woman’s articles? She’s got an obvious cut and paste error in the very first sentence. Does she not have the professionalism to proofread her short article before hitting the post button?
IMO the issue with all these ‘independent’ agencies/boards is that the Constitutional framework doesn’t accommodate them. Clearly these entities don’t fall within Article I, Congress, or Article III, Judiciary, that means they are part of Article II. the Executive Branch. The problem with claims to independence, statute or not, judicial interpretation or not is that the President is vested with ALL Executive Branch power. The end, full stop. Until there is a Constitutional Amendment carving out these agencies into a legitimate, separate and co equal Article IV Branch they gotta defer to the President.
Another win in court.
Our court system is what saved us from becoming Europe.
you’re happy about this one, but we are establishing the precedent that the courts have sway over any action of the executive
Having to rely on the Judicial Branch should scare the pants off you. Trading one branches tyranny for another’s is not the way a country can move forward.
The Federal Reserve has (un-Constitutionally) been granted authority to take over Congress’ powers (to coin money – Article I), not Executive powers.
BTW, all extra-Constitutional delegations of Constitutional powers are ILLEGAL, since they are backdoor methods of amending the Constitution on the cheap.
No government agency or employee should be independent of government oversight and control. That is how we got where we are.
While I agree that the Fed should be under the control of the Executive Branch,
1. I understand the reasoning of attempting to isolate the Fed from the gusts of short-term political expediency. Historically, the party in power does everything it can to influence the economy immediately before elections. I would like to keep the Fed out of that game to the extent possible.
2. I also understand why Trump is using a bulldozer with six chainsaws attached to raze the Deep State. Everything must go! Having said that the world economy is already quivering in confusion and fear and I am reluctant to do anything -right now- that would suggest instability in the U.S. financial system.
In short, there’s enough going one right now and we don’t need to start a battle on yet another front. Let’s save this battle for President Vance.
They claim they are ‘Independent ‘ so they can do as they wish.
Can someone please edit this woman’s articles? She’s got an obvious cut and paste error in the very first sentence. Does she not have the professionalism to proofread her short article before hitting the post button?
LI has long been allergic to proofreading of any sort, even the most basic.
“The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.”
Bingo!