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

Iran responds to U.S. proposal for ending war amid ongoing hostilities

Published

on

President Donald Trump on Sunday appeared to reject Iran’s response to a U.S. proposal to end the war, calling it “totally unacceptable.”

It was not immediately clear what Iran’s response entailed. But it came one day after top Trump officials met in Miami with Qatar’s prime minister as the war entered its tenth week and more than a month after the Pakistani-brokered ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran.

“I have just read the response from Iran’s so-called ‘Representatives.’ I don’t like it — TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!” Trump announced.

A diplomatic source in Tehran told MS NOW earlier in the day that the Iranian proposal was a “positive step but any ending is still a long way down the road. Mistrust needs to be seriously reduced and atmospherics need to be substantially improved.”

Trump issued a statement on Truth Social earlier Sunday in which he said Iran “has been playing games with the United States, and the rest of the World, for 47 years.” The president did not address an Iranian response at that time but warned, “They will be laughing no longer!”

Trump has repeatedly insisted the ceasefire remains intact despite the continued exchange of hostilities and mirroring naval blockades. The U.S. launched strikes against Iran last week in retaliation for an attack on U.S. Navy destroyers, with Trump initially dismissing it as just “a love tap.”

Trump, in a wide-ranging interview that aired Sunday on “Full Measure,” said the U.S. has hit “probably 70 percent” of its targets and that Iran has “no leaders” and “no military.” But he added that combat operations have not ended.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said in an”https://x.com/drpezeshkian/status/2053465838422819089″ target=”_blank” rel=”noreferrer noopener”>X post Sunday“We will never bow our heads before the enemy, and if talk of dialogue or negotiation arises, it does not mean surrender or retreat.” And Iran’s deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, Kazem Gharibabadi, warned that “any deployment and stationing of extra-regional destroyers around the Strait of Hormuz, under the pretext of ‘protecting shipping,’ is nothing but an escalation of the crisis, the militarization of a vital waterway, and an attempt to cover up the true root of insecurity in the region.”

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz said in a Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week” that Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei “has been severely injured” and is “difficult to get a hold of.” He acknowledged that negotiations are taking “longer and slower, I think, than anyone would like” but said “those negotiations and that diplomacy is ongoing.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House envoy Steve Witkoff met on Saturday with Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott stopped short of describing the meeting as peace talks, but said they discussed the “importance of continued close coordination to deter threats and promote stability and security across the Middle East.”

Trump officials remain firm on their demand that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons capabilities. In the most recent ceasefire deal struck in April, Iran rejected the U.S. proposal to suspend all nuclear activity for 20 years and reaffirmed its right to enrich uranium.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei criticized the International Atomic Energy Agencyaccusing the nuclear peace agency of becoming politicized.

“The IAEA’s mandate is verification, not political messaging about the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s missiles, or how Tehran should conduct itself,” Baghaei wrote in an X post Sunday. “When professional impartiality is compromised for political signaling or personal ambition, institutions erode their credibility — and, over time, their effectiveness as well.”

The war continues to jolt the global economy, and Americans are feeling the pain at the pump. Energy Secretary Chris Wright declined to answer whether Americans should expect gas to rise even higher to $5 a gallon. In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, he said, “I can’t predict the price of energy in the short term or even the medium term.”

The average gas price per gallon is $4.52 and climbing, according to motorist group AAA. Last year’s average was $3.14. The Strait of Hormuz – the key trade route through which 20% of the world’s oil flows – remains closed by Iran, despite international calls to allow for the safe passage of cargo ships.

Akayla Gardner and Peggy Helman contributed to this report.

Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.

Inzamam Rashid is a MS NOW contributor and Monocle’s Gulf Correspondent based in Dubai. He has previously reported for Sky News and the BBC

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jack Smith’s latent honesty is valuable — but new challenges require new rules

Published

on

Jack Smith has been speaking out. His words are welcome — even if they may be coming a little too late.

From the time he was appointed special counsel in 2022 until his resignation in January of 2025Smith conducted himself with the kind of stoic silence we expected of the Justice Department at the time. He spoke only at formal press conferences — during which he announced criminal charges against Donald Trump — and even then, scrupulously followed DOJ’s guidance to discuss only facts contained within the four corners of the indictments.

His conduct mirrored that of Robert Mueller, who was similarly silent when serving as the special counsel investigating Russian election interference just a few years prior. In stark contrast, Trump’s current acting Attorney General Todd Blanche routinely uses television news interviews to discuss pending cases, such as the recent indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

As Smith recently told an audience in Washington, D.C., “I grew up as a prosecutor in sort of the Robert Mueller mode of prosecutor. I speak in courtrooms. I do not speak on the courthouse steps. I don’t do media.”

But since leaving his post, Smith has begun to let those rigid prosecutorial walls come down a little, blasting Trump’s Department of Justice on multiple occasions. In April at a private event hosted by the Cosmos Club in Washington D.C., Smith stated that DOJ “targets people for criminal prosecution simply because the president doesn’t like them” and “fails to move on cases because they might uncover facts that are inconvenient to narratives the president would like to press.” Last fall, Smith told an audience at George Mason University: “My career has been about the rule of law, and I believe that today it is under attack like in no other period in our lifetimes.” And at an event in London in October of 2025, Smith spoke out specifically against the increasing attacks on public servantswarning that “it has a cost for our country that is incalculable.”

Mueller and Smith scrupulously followed DOJ’s press policyoften to a fault. They provided no updates on their work until charges were filed, consistent with DOJ’s practice to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation, though everyone in America knew their assignments as special counsels. Even after announcing charges against Trump for election interference and unlawful retention of government documents, Smith did not comment on the evidence or the defendant’s potential guilt, lest he taint Trump’s due process rights to a fair trial. Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland gave an occasional speech about his department’s approach to significant cases, but he, too, largely abided by the traditional view that saying less is more.

The conduct of these men was commendable, but perhaps unnecessary and even counterproductive. While the Blanche model arguably runs afoul of Justice Department policy, future DOJ officials might reconsider whether silence is as golden as was once thought. When a special counsel says nothing, others fill the vacuum with their own narratives. Trump certainly had plenty to say about Mueller and Smith, constantly disparaging them and undermining confidence in their work with labels like “hoax” and “witch hunt.”

The next attorney general might be well served to reconsider the silent treatment. While it remains inappropriate to discuss ongoing investigations, DOJ officials should consider speaking out about their work, their processes and their standards, all of which are designed to treat defendants fairly.

While the Blanche model arguably runs afoul of Justice Department policy, future DOJ officials might reconsider whether silence is as golden as was once thought.

For example, DOJ officials may find utility in making the rounds of the Sunday morning shows when a high-profile case is filed, not to opine on a defendant’s guilt, but to explain how grand juries make a finding of probable cause before returning an indictment. It would surely benefit public confidence to understand that DOJ policy directs prosecutors to provide even more protection than the law requires, such as sharing with grand jurors any evidence that might tend to refute a defendant’s guilt.

In other contexts, officials could discuss the training and policies it uses to ensure compliance with the Principles of Federal Prosecutionwhich forbid prosecutors bring cases unless they believe it probable that the evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction. Most importantly, these principles prohibit prosecutors from making case decisions on the basis of partisan politics.

Rather than standing by in silence when critics like Trump disparage prosecutions, officials in the next DOJ should speak out, assuring the public that it has complied with legal standards, ethics rules and its own policies. Mueller, Smith and Garland followed the norms they had always known, but new challenges require new rules.

Barbara McQuade is a former Michigan U.S. attorney and legal analyst.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Evacuations of passengers from hantavirus-stricken cruise begins in Spain

Published

on

Evacuations of passengers from hantavirus-stricken cruise begins in Spain

TENERIFE, Canary Islands (AP) — Passengers evacuated from the hantavirus-hit cruise shipbegan flying home Sunday aboard military and government planes after the vessel anchored in the Canary Islands, where travelers were escorted to shore by personnel in full-body protective gear and breathing masks.

Spanish passengers were the first to leave the MV Hondius following its arrival in Tenerife, the largest island in the Spanish archipelago off the West African coast. They were then flown to Madrid and taken to a military hospital. Hours later, a plane that evacuated French passengers landed in Paris, where it was met by emergency vehicles.

The planes arriving in Tenerife were to fly out passengers from more than 20 countries in an evacuation effort that was expected to last until Monday.

One of the five French passengers developed symptoms on the flight, French Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu said in a statement, and all were put into strict isolation with plans to be tested.

Earlier, officials from the Spanish Health Ministry, the World Health Organization and the cruise company Oceanwide Expeditions had said none of the more than 140 people who were then on the Hondius had shown symptomsof the virus.

Three people have died since the outbreak began, and five passengers who left the ship earlier are infected with hantavirus.

Health officials say risk to public is low

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus reiterated that the general public should not be worried about the outbreak.

“We have been repeating the same answer many times,” he said. “This is not another COVID. And the risk to the public is low. So they shouldn’t be scared, and they shouldn’t panic.”

Even so, those disembarking and workers at the port of Granadilla in Tenerife wore protective gear during the evacuation process, including hazardous materials suits, face masks and respirators. Video obtained by The Associated Press showed passengers on the tarmac donning similar suits and being sprayed down with disinfectant.

Passengers were relieved to be on their way home, another WHO official said.

“It’s been great seeing all the buses coming out and people really happy to be on land again and being repatriated,” said Diana Rojas Alvarez, the WHO health operations lead, who is on Tenerife.

Authorities have said the disembarking passengers and crew members will be checked for symptoms and will be forbidden from having any contact with the local population. They are to be taken off the ship only when evacuation flights are ready. Tedros and Spain’s health and interior ministers are supervising the operation in Tenerife.

Hantavirus usually spreads when people inhale contaminated residueof rodent droppings, and the disease not easily transmitted between people. But the Andes virusdetected in the cruise ship outbreak may be able to spread between people in rare cases. Symptoms usually show between one and eight weeks after exposure.

Passengers and disembarking crew members left behind their luggage and were allowed to take only a small bag with essentials, a cellphone, a charger and documentation.

Some crew, as well as the body of a passenger who died on board, will remain on the ship, which will sail on to Rotterdam, Netherlands, where it will undergo disinfection, Spanish authorities said.

The journey to Rotterdam takes about five days, the cruise company said.

Passengers will be monitored

The WHO is recommending that passengers’ home countries “have active monitoring and follow-up, which means daily health checks, either at home or in a specialized facility,” Van Kerkhove said.

“We are leaving this up to the countries themselves to actually develop their own policies,” she added. “But our recommendations are very clear, and this is really a cautionary approach to make sure that we don’t have any opportunities for this virus to pass from others.”

Numerous countries have said their people would be quarantined or hospitalized for observation. Earlier, for example, the French Foreign Ministry said its passengers would be hospitalized for 72 hours of monitoring, then would quarantine at home for 45 days.

After the passenger came down with symptoms, the prime minister said the five would be kept in the hospital “until further orders.”

Passengers and crew from the U.K. will be hospitalized for observation, British authorities said.

The acting director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, said Americans would first be flown to the University of Nebraska, which has a federally funded quarantine facility, to assess whether they have been in close contact with any symptomatic people and their risk levels for spreading the virus.

After that, he told BLN’s “State of the Union,” they will be given the choice of staying in Nebraska or going home, where their conditions would be monitored by state and local health agencies.

He noted that seven Americans who left the cruise have been in the U.S. for roughly two weeks, and they are living across the country.

Australia is sending a plane, expected to arrive Monday, to evacuate its people and those from nearby countries, such as New Zealand, and unspecified Asian countries, said Spanish Health Minister Mónica García, who added that the evacuation flight was expected to be the last to leave Tenerife.

Norway sent an ambulance plane to the island with personnel trained to transport patients with high-risk infections, its Directorate for Civil Protection told public broadcaster NRK.

British medics parachute into remote territory

Elsewhere, British Army medics parachuted onto the remote South Atlantic territory of Tristan da Cunha, where one of the 221 residents has a suspected case of hantavirus.

The patient was a passenger on the MV Hondius and disembarked last month.

The U.K. Defense Ministry said a team of six paratroopers and two medical clinicians jumped Saturday from a Royal Air Force transport plane, which also dropped oxygen and medical equipment.

Tristan da Cunha is Britain’s most remote inhabited overseas territory, about 1,500 miles (2,400 kilometers) from the nearest inhabited island, St. Helena. The group of volcanic islands has no airstrip and is usually accessible only by a six-day boat voyage from Cape Town, South Africa.

Meanwhile, a Spanish woman in the southeastern province of Alicante suspected of being infected tested negative for hantavirus, Spanish health authorities said Saturday.

The woman was a passenger on the same flight as the Dutch woman who died in Johannesburg after traveling on the cruise ship.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending