Trump is winning in the Supreme Court because its conservatives believe in strong executive power

Washington – The Supreme Court again said this week that she thought that the president has the full power to control the federal agencies, in particular by strongly reducing his staff and their expenses.

This is the last example of the conservative majority of the Court intervening to govern for President Trump and against the judges of the federal district. They did it out of short orders without explanation, which caused new criticisms from Democrats and progressives.

But chief judge John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues have clearly indicated for many years that they believe that the “executive power” of the president includes control and dismissal agencies of officials, even those who were deemed “independent” by the congress.

On Monday, the court made an order for a line by canceling the decision of a federal judge in Boston who declared that the education department was to reclaim approximately 1,400 members of the staff who had been dismissed.

Trump lawyers called for early June, arguing that the administration “rationalized” the department while “recognizing that only the congress can eliminate it”.

Democratic lawyers had continued to stop the layoffs, arguing that Trump actually “dismantled” the ministry, and the judge agreed that the layoffs were illegal.

The previous week, the conservative majority set aside the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who blocked Trump’s plans to dismiss tens of thousands of employees in more than 20 departments and agencies.

Democrats and progressives condemned decisions and the majority of the majority to explain its reasons.

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, said that the judges “let Trump have a great new power, and they did it without putting their names. They prove accomplices arranged at a constitutional coup, all without leaving any trace. ”

In May, Roberts and the Court confirmed the rejection by Trump of the Nomed Democrats to the National Council for Labor Relations and the Merit Systems Protection Board, who both had fixed conditions set by the congress.

“Because the Constitution constitutes the executive power of the president, he can withdraw without cause from the executives who exercise this power on his behalf,” said the court. “The NLRB and the MSPB exercise considerable executive power.”

The three liberals dissident.

Peter Mr. Shane, a law professor at New York University, wrote a lot about the so-called “unitary executive theory” and said that she explains why Trump has won since her return to the White House.

“Trump’s use of the executive power is not a distortion of the theory of the presidency of the Roberts Court,” he said. “This is the theory of the Court presidency.”

Still pending in court this week, there is a call from Trump lawyers who seeks the dismissal of three people appointed Democrats to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The commissioners are seven years old, but in May, the White House Trump told the three nominees that they had been “dismissed”.

They continued and won a reintegration order to a federal judge in Baltimore.

The recent decisions of the court were presented on emergency calls at the early stadium of a trial. The majority of the court said that Trump’s initiatives could come into force while the dispute continues. But at one point, the judges will have to hear arguments and make a written decision on the underlying legal issue.

In the decision of the three CPSC officials, the Baltimore judge underlined the 1935 Supreme Court decision which protected the constitutionality of “multi-member traditional independent agencies”.

The opinion of the Court in the case of the executor of Humphrey against the United States made a distinction between “purely executive” which were under the control of the president and those who sat on a council “with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions”.

But this precedent has been endangered in recent years.

Five years ago, Roberts spoke to the court and ruled that the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Office could be dismissed by the President, even if the Congress said the opposite.

But as this case did not involve a multi-member council or commission, it did not cancel the previous one of 1935.