Supreme Court Expands Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies (Slaughter Decision)
Key Questions
What did the Supreme Court rule in the Slaughter decision regarding presidential power?
The Court overruled precedent to expand presidential removal authority over independent agencies including the NLRB, EEOC, OSHA, FTC, and SEC. This shift may alter enforcement priorities and introduce volatility for employers. The decision follows the end of Chevron deference in administrative law.
Why is there an internal inconsistency in the Slaughter ruling concerning the Federal Reserve?
The Court created a carveout requiring cause to remove a Federal Reserve governor while broadly expanding removal power elsewhere. This unresolved exception raises questions about its scope and constitutional basis. It adds nuance to the overall business impact of the ruling.
How might the Slaughter decision affect the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework?
The DPF remains intact for now, but reduced FTC independence could invite future legal challenges to data transfers. Businesses should monitor developments and consider practical compliance steps. The ruling creates ongoing uncertainty in this area.
The Supreme Court has issued a ruling overruling long-standing precedent, expanding presidential control over independent agencies like the NLRB, EEOC, OSHA, FTC, and SEC. This decision could significantly shift enforcement priorities and create volatility for employers. A new analysis highlights an internal inconsistency: the Court created a carveout for the Federal Reserve, requiring cause to fire a governor, which contrasts with the broad expansion of removal power. This unresolved carveout raises questions about the scope of the exception and its constitutional grounding, adding nuance to the business impact. Additionally, a recent article clarifies that the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework (DPF) remains intact for now, but the FTC's independence change could trigger future challenges to data transfers, providing practical recommendations for businesses. The ruling is a major development in administrative law, following the demise of Chevron deference.