President Trump's effort to further cement his grip over nearly all facets of the executive branch has resulted in a new wave of dismissals and a mix of reactions from those who'd already been fired by the administration.
Some officials fired by Trump gave up. Others are digging in, hoping they’ll still be vindicated despite the justices’ recent decision.
Here’s where things stand less than one month out from the decision:
Trump’s opening move targets elections
Days after the Supreme Court ruled, Trump quickly acted. He fired the members of the Election Assistance Commission (EAC).
Trump removed Democrats Benjamin Hovland and Thomas Hicks from the commission, with the White House citing the Slaughter decision as precedent.
“The President, and head of the Executive Branch, reserves the right to remove individuals that may not be totally aligned with the important task of securing America’s elections and ensuring every legal vote is counted,” a White House official said in a statement.
A third commission member, Republican Christy McCormick, resigned.
The EAC, established in 2002, is an independent board that provides funds, training and assistance to state election officials to help them prepare for federal elections and facilitate voter participation. It also certifies voting technology and handles national voter registration forms, among other duties.
It is required by law to be bipartisan. The Help America Vote Act mandates that no more than two of the four commissioners, who are nominated by the president based on recommendations from majority and minority leadership, can belong to the same party.
Hicks told PBS News in a recent interview that he had not made a decision on whether to contest his firing.
“I think that I want to weigh all options,” he said. “There have been some really great outreach from folks, but I want to weigh all my options before thinking about moving forward.”
No suit has landed yet.
Many legal observers have also had their eyes on the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which has a similar membership setup and administers the nation’s campaign finance laws.
Neither has explicit for-cause removal protections.
Don’t expect any immediate rulings in the courts. After Trump forced out Democrat FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub last year, she never sued.
Is the Fed’s Lisa Cook in the clear?
As the Supreme Court has expanded presidential firing power, the Federal Reserve governors’ removal protections have become the 800-pound gorilla.
Even the conservative justices have signaled that the Fed has a special status as the nation’s central bank and that its independence may still be OK.
Chief Justice John Roberts took care in last month’s opinion to say it “should not be read” to “implicate the constitutionality of such arrangements.”
For now, the Fed’s Lisa Cook remains in her job despite Trump’s attempt to fire her. Roberts and four other justices ruled that she is entitled to more process.
It’s not settled yet, however.
On Monday, Cook’s lawsuit was formally handed back down to the trial judge. It frees up U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former President Biden, to begin the next phase.
Bill Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency who advanced the mortgage fraud accusations that spurred Cook’s firing, has said he still believes Cook will end up indicted.
Are any other financial regulators like the Fed?
In singling out the Fed for special protections, the Supreme Court has tied it to a unique tradition dating back to the First and Second Banks of the United States.
It has provided a glimmer of hope to some other fired independent agency leaders, who say their legal challenge can still survive, too.
Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka, Democratic appointees to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) fired by Trump last year, have been the most forward. They say their regulator “follows in that same lineage” as the Fed, and they want to keep pushing.
Justice Department attorney Laura Myron has said in court filings the government “is still sorting out how to proceed.”
If the current schedule holds, expect a written update from the administration on the NCUA and many of the other cases around the end of the month.
What about the Library of Congress?
The fate of Shira Perlmutter, whom the administration has tried to fire as the nation’s register of copyrights, remains unclear. She’s in the job as of now.
At issue is the unique structure of her role within the Library of Congress.
Last year, Trump fired the librarian and replaced her with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. He then purported to fire Perlmutter. She sued, saying the president is improperly reaching into the legislative branch.
After the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision last month, the justices have temporarily let stand an order that Perlmutter be reinstated. They’ve left it to the lower courts to figure out what to do next.
“The denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation,” reads their brief, unsigned order declining to immediately greenlight her firing
As it moves forward, don’t forget that Justice Clarence Thomas publicly voted in the administration’s favor when Perlmutter’s case first landed at the justices’ feet in the fall. He could be a sympathetic ear if the case ever returns.
Not every agency is an open question, however. Some fired offices have thrown in the towel. Here’s what they’re telling us:
Former Equal Employment Opportunity Commission member Jocelyn Samuels: “I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s legal analysis... the Court’s opinion, however, leaves me without a viable path forward to continue contesting my termination.”
National Mediation Board member Deidre Hamilton: “It was an honor and a privilege to serve on the National Mediation Board, and I would have gladly served for many more years.”
No comments:
Post a Comment