The team of former U.S. President Trump recently submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the legal framework of the "Humphrey's Executor case," which restricts presidential dismissal powers. Established in 1935, this precedent stipulates that the president cannot arbitrarily remove heads of independent agencies with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions, aiming to protect the political independence of agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Recently, local courts have twice rejected Trump's attempts to dismiss two members of administrative agencies appointed by Biden, based on the spirit of this case. Trump's team emphasized in the appeal that the president should not be forced to retain agency heads whose policies are contrary to his own, even if the "execution of policies has caused irreversible harm" during the transition period.
Saikrishna Prakash, a legal expert at the University of Virginia, pointed out that this case could fundamentally end the boundaries of presidential power established by the Humphrey's Executor case. University of Chicago scholar Will Baude also predicts that conservative justices on the Supreme Court are "extremely likely" to reshape the structure of executive power through this case. If the appeal is successful, it would not only clear the way for Trump to remove "dissenting officials," but would also undermine the traditional protective mechanisms for independent agencies like the Federal Reserve—this means that in the future, presidents may breach the "Humphrey firewall" and directly intervene in central bank personnel matters when disagreements over monetary policy escalate.
