Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The consequences of John Roberts’ FTC pronouncement will be felt long after Trump

Published

on

The consequences of John Roberts’ FTC pronouncement will be felt long after Trump

On Monday, the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to President Donald Trump’s unlawful termination of a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. In doing so, the court further strengthened the hand of an administration intent on tightening its grip on every aspect of the federal government. Once again, the nation’s highest court used its shadow docket to overturn two lower court rulings with minimal explanation — or, in this case, with no explanation at all. Once again, Trump asked a highly partisan Supreme Court to rubber-stamp a blatantly political action, one that clearly violates the spirit and letter of the law — and the court obliged.

This ruling, however, is bad not only for Trump’s critics but also for the viability of independent agencies. By rewriting the rules for Trump, the court has opened the door for future presidents of both parties to exploit its precedent. This decision signals the beginning of the end of these agencies that were created to protect the interests of the American people, not serve the political whims of whoever occupies the Oval Office.

Allowing a president to fire commissioners or board members who refuse to do his bidding eviscerates an agency’s autonomy.

The Federal Trade Commission is an independent watchdog agency created in 1914 to protect the public from deceptive or unfair business practices. For more than a century, the FTC has sought to be an objective referee of the marketplace by promoting competition, preventing monopolies and stopping scams and frauds. Congress specifically designed the FTC to be bipartisan and independent. The five commissioners have staggered seven-year terms, no more than three can be from the same political party, and they can be removed by the president only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

The only previous time a president attempted to remove an FTC commissioner was in 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William Humphrey — who was appointed by Roosevelt’s predecessor, Herbert Hoover — over policy differences. Humphrey challenged his dismissal, and in the landmark 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled the restriction on the president’s removal power to be constitutional and declared Humphrey’s termination illegal. The court explained that the president’s power over the executive branch is not without limits and that Congress’ authority to create independent agencies not subject to the president’s control “cannot well be doubted.”

That was then.

In March, Trump fired Democratic commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whom he himself had appointed in 2018, claiming her service is “inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter sued, and in July, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in her favor, citing Humphrey’s nearly identical case from 90 years earlier.

But in between Slaughter’s filing her lawsuit and AliKhan’s ruling, the Supreme Court weakened the independence of other federal agencies. In May, it paused lower court rulings reinstating members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board whom Trump had fired without cause, in violation of the applicable laws. The Supreme Court did not consider the appeals of those rulings — which had been upheld by an appellate court — in its usual manner of extensive briefing and oral argument. Instead, it used its emergency docket — also known as the “shadow docket” — to stop the rulings from being implemented while offering scant accounting of its reasoning. In a two-page ruling (the judicial equivalent of condensing a John Grisham novel into a tweet), the Court’s majority indicated that the for-cause removal restrictions for the NLRB and the MSPB were unconstitutional.

On Monday, only six days after the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C., approved the lower court’s reinstatement of Slaughter’s going into effect, Chief Justice Roberts issued a two-sentence orderwith no explanation, that reversed course and permits Slaughter’s removal.

Supreme Court precedent, of course, outlasts any administration.

Humphrey’s Executor is on life support. That presumably means nothing to the majority of Americans, but they will certainly feel the impact of its loss. Congress established many independent agencies with express limits on the president’s removal authority. Examples include the National Transportation Safety Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Federal Reserve, just to name a few. (In its May ruling, the Supreme Court’s majority expressly distinguished the Federal Reserve from the NLRB and the MSPB. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent welcomed that distinction “to avoid imperiling the Fed” but noted it was “out of the blue” because the Fed’s independence rests on the same legal foundation as that of those and other agencies.)

As the Supreme Court explained in Humphrey’s, for-cause removal goes hand in hand with an agency’s independence. Allowing a president to fire commissioners or board members who refuse to do his bidding eviscerates an agency’s autonomy. With Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court is not merely reinterpreting Humphrey’s to narrow its application for other agencies. It is throwing out the precedent completely, giving nearly limitless power to Trump to force every supposedly independent federal agency to serve his political interests.

We would be naive to expect the demise of agencies’ independence to miraculously reappear after this president leaves office. Supreme Court precedent, of course, outlasts any administration.

As the White House swings back and forth between parties, we can expect significant policy changes from different presidents’ handpicked loyalists who are responsible for keeping our highways and skyways running smoothly, setting workplace safety standards and maintaining the stability of our housing finance system, as well as controlling the monetary policy that affects our mortgage payments, fortifies our economy and protects against hyperinflation.

Even worse, we could see the extreme politicization of these agencies. Trump supporters who cheer the president’s having absolute authority over (formerly) independent agencies will shudder to think about, for example, the Federal Communications Commission’s enforcing truth-in-advertising rules only against conservative media outlets or the Environmental Protection Agency’s fast-tracking permits and subsidies for renewable energy projects that use union labor.

Congress made the FTC independent to insulate it from the “volatile political headwinds that might jeopardize its mission,” as Judge AliKhan wrote in her ruling reinstating Slaughter. That insulation from political pressure promotes independent agencies’ effectiveness, maintains their credibility and ensures that they serve the public, not the president. But this Supreme Court, in egregious acts of what conservatives usually decry as judicial activism, is circumventing Congress’ intent and putting these agencies under the president’s thumb.

For nearly a century, for-cause removal protections have helped preserve our constitutional system by balancing power between the legislative and executive branches and protecting critical federal agencies from the political interests of the president. Overturning that precedent does not merely weaken the FTC and other agencies; it fundamentally changes the checks and balances that safeguard our democracy and guarantee our liberty. Placing this new power in the hands of current and future administrations leads to a government in which public accountability is a mirage and partisan loyalty is reality.

Andrew Warren

Andrew Warren is senior counsel at Democracy Defenders Action. He previously was a prosecutor with the U.S. Justice Department and the elected district attorney in Tampa, Florida.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Dr. Trump? The president reprises his COVID era

Published

on

Dr. Trump? The president reprises his COVID era

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump isn’t a doctor. But he played one on TV Monday, offering copious amounts of unproven medical advice that he suggested — often without providing evidence — might help reduce autism rates.

Trump repeatedly implored pregnant women to avoid taking the painkiller Tylenol, the bestselling form of acetaminophen. That’s despite the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists long recommending acetaminophen as a safe option during pregnancy. He even weighed in on when children should be given painkillers.

Speaking alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., himself a vaccine skepticTrump stopped short of opposing all vaccines. But he said key immunizations should be delayed, or combination shots should be given separately — even though it has been proven that vaccines have no link to autism.

“Don’t let them pump your baby up with the largest pile of stuff you’ve ever seen in your life,” he said.

Trump also wildly overstated how such shots — some of which protect against four diseases — are given.

“I think it’s very bad. They’re pumping, it looks like they’re pumping into a horse,” Trump said. “You have a little child. A little fragile child. And you’ve got a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess, 80 different blends, and they pump it in.”

Dr. Trump redux

The presentation recalled the early days of the coronavirus pandemic during Trump’s first term, when the president stood for daily White House briefings and tossed out grossly inaccurate claims — including famously suggesting that injecting disinfectants could help people.

“I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning?” Trump asked in April 2020. “As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

He later claimed he’d been joking, but those briefings soon stopped. His tone stayed serious Monday.

The president suggested unspecified problems with the the safe and effective MMR — measles, mumps and rubella — vaccine and advised parents to wait years later than now, until age 12, for hepatitis B vaccines to be given to children.

The theme he hit harder than any other, though, was declaring a supposed link between autism and acetaminophen, which is known in most countries outside the U.S. as paracetamol. Trump repeated, “Don’t take Tylenol,” with increasing urgency and eventually shouted it.

Tylenol maker Kenvue disputed any link between the drug and autism and said in a statement that if pregnant mothers don’t use Tylenol when in need, they could face a choice between suffering potentially dangerous fevers or using riskier painkiller alternatives.

Trump, Kennedy and many of the administration’s top health officials all spoke, but largely repeated known statistics rather than new research findings. Trump appeared to acknowledge that science might not be on his side, saying at one point, “I’m just making these statements from me.”

“I’m not making them from these doctors,” the president conceded. “Cause when they, uh, talk about, you know, different results, different studies, I talk about a lot of common sense. And they have that, too. They have that too, a lot.”

But then he later insisted he’d “spoken to many doctors about everything we’re talking about.”

Many scientists were appalled

“The announcement on autism was the saddest display of a lack of evidence, rumors, recycling old myths, lousy advice, outright lies, and dangerous advice I have ever witnessed by anyone in authority in the world claiming to know anything about science,” Arthur Caplan, of the New York University School of Medicine’s Division of Medical Ethics, said in a statement. “What was said was not only unsupported and wrong but flat out malpractice in managing pregnancy and protecting fetal life.”

Ahead of the autism event, Trump had suggested that his administration had discovered new medical links that would dramatically explain why its rates have risen. But his preparation didn’t include learning how to pronounce acetaminophen, which tripped him up.

“Asedo … well, let’s see how we say that. Acid em … menophin,” Trump stammered before continuing, “Acetaminophen? Is that OK?”

Trump also insisted there was “no downside” to Americans heeding his advice “other than a mother will have to, as I say, tough it out a little bit” and avoid Tylenol for pain while pregnant.

“Everything I said, there’s no downside to doing it,” Trump said. “It can only be good.” Still, untreated fevers in pregnancy, particularly the first trimester, increase the risk for miscarriages, preterm birth and other problems, according to the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The president tried to head off such criticism by blaming pharmaceutical companies and “maybe doctors” for having suppressed critical medical information previously. He said his statements were based on “the information that we have.”

“I’m making them out front, and I’m making them loud,” Trump said. “And I’m making them strongly.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Federal judge lifts administration halt of offshore wind farm in New England

Published

on

Federal judge lifts administration halt of offshore wind farm in New England

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Monday that a nearly complete offshore wind project halted by the administration can resume, dealing President Donald Trump a setback in his ongoing effort to restrict the fledgling industry.

Work on the nearly completed Revolution Wind project for Rhode Island and Connecticut has been paused since Aug. 22 when the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop-work order for what it said were national security concerns. The Interior Department agency did not specify those concerns at the time. Both the developer and the two states sued in federal courts.

Danish energy company Orsted and its joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables sought a preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court that would allow them to move forward with the project.

At a hearing Monday, Judge Royce Lamberth said he considered how Revolution Wind has relied on its federal approval, the delays are costing $2.3 million a day and if the project can’t meet deadlines, the entire enterprise could collapse. After December, the specialized ship needed to complete the project won’t be available until at least 2028, he said. More than 1,000 people have been working on the wind farm, which is 80% complete.

“There is no question in my mind of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs,” Lamberth said, as he granted the motion for the preliminary injunction. In his written ruling, he said Revolution Wind had “demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits” of its claim, adding that granting the injunction is in the public interest.

Interior Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Peace said the ruling means Revolution Wind “will be able to resume construction” while the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management “continues its investigation into possible impacts by the project to national security and prevention of other uses on the Outer Continental Shelf.”

The administration said in a court filing this month that while BOEM approved the wind farm, it stipulated that the developer continue to work with the Department of Defense to mitigate national security concerns. It said the Interior Department, to date, has not received any information that these concerns have been addressed.

Orsted said Monday that construction will resume as soon as possible, and it will continue to seek to work collaboratively with the administration.

Nancy Pyne of the Sierra Club said the court ruling “reaffirms that Donald Trump and his administration’s attacks on clean energy are not only reckless and harmful to our communities, but they are also illegal.” Trump is trying to “kneecap” renewable energy “in favor of dirty and expensive fossil fuels,” she said.

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said Trump was elected with a mandate to “restore our country’s energy dominance — which includes prioritizing the most effective and reliable tools to power our country. This will not be the final say on the matter.”

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to end the offshore wind industry as soon as he returned to the White House. He wants to boost production of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal, which emit greenhouse gases that cause climate change, in order for the U.S. to have the lowest-cost energy and electricity of any nation in the world, he says.

His administration has stopped construction on major offshore wind farmsrevoked wind energy permits and paused permittingcanceled plans to use large areas of federal waters for new offshore wind development and stopped $679 million in federal funding for a dozen offshore wind projects.

Last week, the administration moved to block a separate Massachusetts offshore wind farm. That was just days after the Interior Department asked a federal judge in Baltimore to cancel previous approval to build an offshore wind project in Maryland.

Revolution Wind is supposed to be Rhode Island’s and Connecticut’s first large offshore wind farm, capable of supplying power to more than 350,000 homes, about 2.5% of the region’s electricity needs.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong and Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha, who are both Democrats, called the judge’s ruling a major win for workers and families, who need the project to stay on track so it can start to drive down unaffordable energy bills.

Connecticut Rep. Joe Courtney, a Democrat, said a multibillion-dollar project that is 80% complete and was fully permitted with input by the Pentagon is not a national security problem. The Interior Department “should take the hint and let the thousands of construction workers finish the job,” he said.

Orsted began construction in 2024 about 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of the Rhode Island coast. It says in its complaint that about $5 billion has been spent or committed, and it expects more than $1 billion in costs if the project is canceled. Rhode Island is already home to one offshore wind farm, the five-turbine Block Island Wind Farm.

___

McDermott reported from Providence, Rhode Island. AP Writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this report.

___

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump wants to redistribute billions that were taken from California’s high-speed railroad

Published

on

Trump wants to redistribute billions that were taken from California’s high-speed railroad

The Trump administration wants to redistribute $2.4 billion it pulled from California’s high-speed rail project as part of a new $5 billion program announced Monday to fund rail projects to boost passenger rail traffic nationwide.

The new program’s rules for states and others wanting to participate remove any mention of diversity or climate change dating to the Biden administration. The new program will also put a priority on projects in areas with higher rates of birth and marriage and projects that improve safety at railroad crossings.

The Trump administration has removed climate change and so-called DEI language from other grant requirements, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy took a jab at that Biden-era language and California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s rail project in his announcement.

“Our new National Railroad Partnership Program will emphasize safety – our number one priority – without the radical … DEI and green grant requirements. Instead of wasting dollars on Governor Newsom’s high-speed rail boondoggle, these targeted investments will improve the lives of rail passengers, local drivers, and pedestrians,” Duffy said.

The biggest chunk of this money the Federal Railroad Administration announced comes from the $4 billion that was pulled from the California project. The rest of the money comes from a combination of what was announced last year and what is in this year’s budget.

President Donald Trump and Duffy have both criticized the decades-old California project for its cost overruns and many delays that have kept the train that’s designed to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles from becoming a reality.

California officials said they will fight the effort to redistribute money they believe should be going to their project. They had already filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s decision to pull federal funding from the rail project.

“The FRA’s decision to terminate federal funding for California high-speed rail was unlawful, unwarranted, and is being challenged in federal court. Now, their attempt to redirect a portion of that funding, currently the subject of litigation, is premature,” said Micah Flores, a spokesman for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. “The Authority has been prepared for this possibility and will take imminent legal action to block this misguided effort by the FRA.”

The focus on areas with higher birth and marriage rates reflects Trump’s executive orders that make spending that benefits American families a priority in his administration, according to an FRA spokesman.

The Federal Railroad Administration said railroad crossings are important to address because more than 200 people a year are killed when trains collide with vehicles or pedestrians at crossings. That has long been something the government and railroads have worked to address, but it is costly to build bridges or underpasses that allow cars to safely bypass the tracks.

Even though the money is targeted toward improving passenger rail, some of it will almost certainly go to improvements on the nation’s major freight railroads because Amtrak uses their tracks for most of its long-distance routes across the country.

The administration also said it would give priority to projects that improve the traveling experience for families by adding amenities like nursing mothers’ rooms, expanded waiting areas and children’s play areas in train stations.

Applications for this money are due by Jan. 7.

___

Associated Press writer Sophie Austin contributed to this report from Sacramento, California.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending