Trump is winning in the Supreme Court because its conservatives believe in strong executive power
Washington – The Supreme Court said that this week again, the President believes that he had the power to control federal institutions, including his personnel sharp cutting and expenditures.
It is the last example of the court’s conservative majority, who intervened in the rule of the court against Trump and the judges of the Federal region. They directed more criticism than the democrats and the progressive, and they did with short orders without explanation.
However, the chief justice John G. Roberts Jr. And over the years, conservative colleagues have made it clear that the President believes that the “executive power ği includes the institutions and ignition authorities that control even those who are considered“ independent ”by the congress.
On Monday, the court issued a single -line order that put aside the decision of a federal judge in Boston.
Trump’s lawyers appealed in early June, and argued that the administration “puts it in order” the department “by admitting that the Congress could only eliminate the Congress”.
Democratic state lawyers filed a lawsuit to stop their dismissal by arguing that Trump effectively “dismantled ,, and the judge admitted that the dismissal was illegal.
A week ago, the conservative majority put aside the decision of a Federal judge in San Francisco, which prevented Trump’s plans to quit tens of thousands of employees in more than 20 departments and agents.
Democrats and progressives condemned their decisions and the reasons of the majority.
Brennan Center President Michael Waldman, justice, “Trump allows a wide new power to collect and without putting their names on it.
Roberts and Court in May Dispection of Trump The National Labor Relations Board of Democratic Appointed and the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of which have fixed conditions determined by the Congress.
“Since the Constitution supports the executive power in the president, it can remove this power without executive officers who apply it on its behalf,” he said. “Both NLRB and MSPB use important managers.”
He had three liberal opposition.
Peter M. Shane, a professor of law at the University of New York, wrote comprehensively on the so -called “Uniter Administrative Theory ve and said why Trump has won since his return to the White House.
“Trump’s use of the executive power is not the distortion of the Roberts Court’s presidential theory,” he said. “The court’s theory is revived.”
Trump’s lawyers, who are still in front of the court, have a appeal that wants three democratic appointments to be fired to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The commissioners have seven -year periods, but in May, Trump White House said that they were “terminated” to three democrats.
A federal judge in Baltimore ordered them to restore them and won.
The final decisions made from the court applied for an emergency appeal in the first stage of the case. The majority of the court said that Trump’s initiatives could come into force while the case was going on. However, at some point, justice will have to hear the arguments and make a written decision on the basis of the basis.
In the CPSC decision of three officials, the judge in Baltimore pointed out the 1935 decision of the Supreme Court, which maintains the constitution of “traditional multi -member independent agencies”.
Court’s opinion HUMPHREY’S PERSONAL EXAMPLE Etc. The United States made a distinction between the “enforcement officers” under the control of the President and those who served in a board of directors with “half judicial or semi -legal functions”.
However, this precedent has been dangerous in recent years.
Five years ago, Roberts spoke for the court and decided to be expelled by the President of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, even if he said the other opposite.
However, since this case does not contain a multi -member committee or commission, it does not invalidate the 1935 precedent.
