An appeal judge in Washington, D.C. will consider a key question on Friday: Does the president have a constitutional body formed by Congress that fires members of the committee independent of the White House?

More specifically: Did President Trump remove the positions of Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Excellent Systems Protection Commission?

The lower judge has said yes and called it "yes" by the Supreme Court ruling in 1935 Humphrey's executive This restricts Congress from putting its power to the president's removal. The judge ordered Wilcox and Harris to return to their seats temporarily.

But the Trump administration appealed the decisions, believing that lower court judges made mistakes in interpreting the 1935 ruling that they went beyond the power to order the restoration. After some round-trip motions involving the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stepped in on April 9, with Chief Justice John Roberts giving orders to re-dismiss Wilcox and Harris until the merits of their cases could be considered.

Two of the three DC Circuit judges who will hear these worthy debate on Friday are Trump appointed, in which case they support the administration’s position that the Constitution gives Trump the power to control the executive branch when he sees fit. The third judge was appointed by Biden, and that was different.

Agent independence

In this case, not only Wilcox and Harris’ jobs, but Trump’s jobs were fired in similar ways, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Congress created these "independent institutions" and provided some protection through political intervention in the law. They are led by the board of directors or committees, and their members are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

Congress requires these boards or committees to be staggered clauses for serving bipartisan, Democratic and Republican members. Under the law, the president can only fire members, such as neglecting duties or malfeasance.

Now, the Trump administration says such restrictions are unconstitutional, and Congress remains silent on the issue to a large extent.

"Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the entire executive power, and he is alone responsible to the people," Trump wrote in a letter to Wilcox.

Wilcox and Harris warned that the president's favourable ruling would put the independence of other government boards, including the Federal Reserve, at risk. They warned that if the court found Trump had the constitutional authority to fire them, nothing would hinder his threat to fire Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, but recently said he had no "unintentional."

The Trump administration tried to calm these fears and wrote in court documents that the Fed is a "unique institution with a unique history and background" related to its insulating level of presidential control.

"That's not over," Harris's lawyer wrote in his answer. "There is no coherent way to create a special 'Feder exception', which makes the government's theory devastating.

Constitutional Competitive Interpretation

Wilcox and Harris think overturn Humphrey's executive It will cause confusion. The Trump administration believes that this is not to overturn legal precedents.

Instead, government lawyers believe Humphrey's executive Given the “substantive executive power” its institutions exert today, the Trump administration said the Supreme Court did not consider “substantive enforcement powers” ​​90 years ago and therefore did not apply to Wilcox and Harris.

The way Trump administration lawyers describe it: The Constitution is attributed to the president's executive power. They believe that the court cannot force the president to retain the person he does not trust in the enforcement of his policies.

"Official leaders within the executive branch must share the goals of my administration and its commitment to serving the will of the American people," Trump wrote in a letter to Wilcox.

Wilcox's lawyers say this is a positive new interpretation of the Constitution. They believe that the power of the National Labor Relations Commission includes hearing Appeals regarding labor disputes, issuing remedies and formulating rules related to the way federal labor laws are - not as broad as the government stipulates, and notes that the board of directors must go to court to enforce its rulings.

Meanwhile, Harris's lawyer is trying to shrink Humphrey's executive “Forgotten” believes it does not apply to the Performance Systems Protection Committee, which heard complaints related to employment. Oppose their institutions.

“If the committee is not constitutional Humphrey's executive,there is nothing. ” they wrote.