Trump v. Slaughter obliterates anti-corruption protections
The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. Slaughter vastly increases Trump’s power to politicize and corrupt independent federal agencies. This decision is the culmination of decades of radical right authoritarianism in its long‑running mission to accelerate the transfer of wealth and power from the public to a small, entrenched authoritarian elite. For decades, legal firewalls like the 1935 USSC decision in Humphrey’s Executor ensured that regulators enforcing antitrust, financial, labor, and consumer‑protection laws could resist direct presidential retaliation when they crossed powerful corporations or donors. By obliterating those protections, the Court has effectively turned federal agencies that once mediated between public and private interests into powerful, unstoppable instruments of presidential patronage and corruption. This is exactly the kind of legal and governmental environment where authoritarian wealth and power accumulation and authoritarian politics thrive.
This decision gives Trump new power to finish corrupting the federal government’s enforcement machinery and to continue gutting already weak anti‑corruption and pro-civil‑liberties laws and regulations. Chairs and commissioners at the FTC, SEC, CFPB, NLRB, and other independent bodies now serve at the absolute pleasure of a president who has repeatedly framed regulators, inspectors general, and prosecutors as enemies when they investigate his allies or business interests.
The effects of this USSC decision are absolutely predictable. Meaningful law and regulation enforcement at the federal level has ended. Federal agency leaders now know that aggressive action against monopoly corruption, dark money abuses, and aggressive surveillance will cost them their jobs is they piss Trump off. However, “morally flexible” bureaucrats who work to protect Trump and protected elite interests will be rewarded. Over time, wealth and power will flow upward. Lax to non-existent antitrust law enforcement, permissive financial regulation, and weakened workplace protections are coming with a vengeance. Political power is now concentrated in an utterly corrupt presidency that is fully aligned with the richest and best‑organized individuals and business sectors is America.
The danger to honest, transparent government and democracy is profound, not abstract. Sure, independent agencies were never perfectly insulated from special interest capture, but their at least partial autonomy created possibilities for public‑minded officials to resist corrupting influences from both corporate pressure and White House interference. That autonomy is now gone. When it is inconvenient to Trump or his elite allies and donors, federal laws will not be enforced. Provided they keep Trump on their side, Trump’s donors, media allies, enablers, and favored industries are free to feed at the public interest trough. They can freely steal, embezzle, waste, and grift, without limit or federal law interference.
What used to be core rule‑of‑law functions in antitrust regulations, securities fraud, consumer finance, labor rights, and personal privacy, are now sources of special interest power. That obliterates one of the last institutional buffers protecting ordinary Americans and the broader public interest.
The unitary executive legal theory
For context, this USSC decision in Trump v. Slaughter is based on an authoritarian, radical right legal theory called the unitary executive theory. That legal theory holds that the president alone has absolute power to hire and fire all executive branch federal employees for any reason or no reason at all. According to the MAGA version of the unitary executive, Congress cannot pass laws to protect regulators, prosecutors, or watchdogs from presidential retaliation or special interest corruption. Current laws require a president to fire protected federal employees for cause, i.e., corruption, incompetence, unreasonable waste, or malfeasance.
Before congress established a degree of independence from corrupting special interest and White House influences, the federal government was much more corrupt than after protections for federal employees were written into laws. The USSC upheld those protections from corruption in its 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision. Humphrey’s Executor was a key point in how the federal government tried to protect the public’s interest from both presidential and special‑interest corruption. Now those protections are completely or almost completely gone.
Info sources: Link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link, link
Q: Are legal, policy and advocacy experts mostly correct to characterize Trump v. Slaughter as one of the most important and most corrupting and anti‑democratic Supreme Court decisions in modern US history, or is this just a tempest in the teapot?
No comments:
Post a Comment