[ad_1]
President Donald Trump’s Justice Department is trying to overturn a groundbreaking Supreme Court case to give the president a greater control over an independent, three-letter institution.
In a move that makes it easier for Trump to fire employees who refuse to implement his policies, the acting U.S. Attorney General wrote a letter Wednesday to Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat of Illinois, who told the Department of Justice He notified him of plans to ask the Supreme Court to overturn an important precedent limiting the president’s authority to eliminate members of independent institutions.
A letter written by Attorney General Sarah Harris found that the DOJ had determined that the “removal provisions for certain causes” applied to members of certain administrative bodies were unconstitutional and that the department “does not defend their constitution.” He says that.
Trump’s order to resign from accusations against Eric Adams, Department of Justice, mayor, will cause resignation
Humphrey’s Enforcer v. The case in question was a 1935 Supreme Court case that narrowed the president’s constitutional authority to eliminate agent in the administrative department.
Earlier this month, a former NLRB member sued President Donald Trump for her firing, claiming that federal law would protect her from arbitrarily dismissing her. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Harris cited the previous incident, Myers v. United States. This concludes that the Constitution granted the President the sole authority.
“The exceptions recognized by Humphrey’s enforcers therefore do not fit the key officers leading the above-mentioned regulatory board,” Harris wrote in the letter.
“As long as Humphrey’s enforcer demands that it does not, the department intends to urge the Supreme Court to dismiss that decision, and to properly oversee principal officers of the administrative department who enforce the law on behalf of the President It prevents it from hindering. Harris continued.
Durbin called the letter “a long-standing reversal of the Justice Department’s position under Republican and Democrat presidents,” in a statement by Fox News Digital. He added that the demand “is not surprising from an administration that is searching for only wealthy special interests, not Americans.”
Bondi is announcing a new lawsuit against the state that is said to not comply with immigration lawsuits: “New DOJ”
However, conservative legal theorists supported the Trump administration’s move, claiming that overturning Humphrey’s enforcer would bring the federal government closer to the original intentions of the constitutional framers. President Trump has raised the presidential election against former President Joe Biden as a contest between “deep nations” and democracy, saying, “We either have a deep nation or have a democracy. Others.”
“Congress is making laws. It is the president’s duty to implement and enforce these laws under the president’s unified enforcement theory,” says Hans von Spakowsky, a senior law fellow at the Heritage Foundation, Fox He told News Digital. “It means that the President has full control over the administrative bodies because he is the head of the administrative bodies. That means that everyone in the administrative sector, especially especially, and most importantly, all of the It includes hiring and firing of all responsible persons. The various offices and departments within the administrative department.
The acting attorney general wrote to Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin on Wednesday to inform the Department of Justice plan and to the Supreme Court to limit the president’s authority to eliminate members of independent bodies. We have called for the precedent to be overturned. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
Von Spakovsky states that the exceptions engraved by the court of Humphrey’s enforcer “does not apply to these federal agencies.” In her letter, Harris mentioned in particular the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRB), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Earlier this month, a former NLRB member sued Trump for her firing, claiming that federal law protects her from being deliberately rejected. The Trump administration has also been the target of a variety of other lawsuits, including the firing of federal employees.
Patel Camp reduces Durbin’s accusation as a “politically motivated” attempt to derail FBI confirmation
“My view on what’s going on on Trump’s agenda now is that they’re itching to stand up to higher federal court levels, including the Supreme Court,” he says, pressing this kind of question. That’s all. ” out of Hillsdale University politics, told Fox News Digital.
Pestritto says that some of the administration’s actions “contradict the existing civil service law, existing protections, for example the removal of NLRB commissioners.”
“And the real story of the tape comes when these first sentences were sued on the appeal ladder and finally sued by the Supreme Court. Humphrey’s reconsideration,” Pestritto said. (Photo of Olivier DoulieryAfp via Getty Images)
“And obviously they know they’ll lose a lot of it at the lower court level, and they want to push them up to the Supreme Court.”
Von Spakovsky said independent agencies “cannot explain” as a result of Humphrey’s enforcers, “holding voters accountable by bringing them back to where they belong, under the authority of the president.” He said.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Trump’s lawyers are likely to lose in lower courts, Pestritto said he hopes the judges will apply Supreme Court precedent to his decision. But even so, the Trump administration can make a higher appeal to attempt to get Supreme Court review, where Humphrey’s enforcers could be overturned.
“[Democrats] First of all, they intend to win injunctions very often, as they know it’s easy to review for sympathetic district judges. And secondly, district judges will essentially be carried out by existing Supreme Court precedents. “And the real story of the tape is when these first sentences are sued on the appeal ladder and ultimately become the best. The court certainly has a proper understanding of Article 2 of the Constitution. There is a lot of justice I think is and it could be open to Humphrey’s rethinking.”
Haley Chi-Sing is a writer for Fox News Digital. You can contact her at X at @haleychising.
[ad_2]Source link
