最高法院(Supreme Court)做出了一项可能改变联邦政府的里程碑式的决定，允许唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)总统出于政策原因，解除美国联邦贸易委员会民主党议员丽贝卡·斯劳特(Rebecca Slaughter)的职务，这逆转了90年来阻止随意解除独立机构官员职务和大幅扩大总统权力的法律先例。
这项6比3的裁决来自首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨。
罗伯茨代表大多数人写道，国会对二十多个独立的两党政府机构实施的“有原因的”免职保护违反了权力分立。
罗伯茨写道:“无论文本、历史和结构如何，我们的先例都证实了——总统可以随意撤换他的下属。”。
这一决定让特朗普和未来的总统对政府有更多的控制权，并有效地结束了监管美国生活许多方面的监管机构的两党独立性质。
特朗普总统在他的社交媒体平台上发帖称，呼叫最高法院的判决这是一个“重大胜利”，也是“总统权力方面最重要的胜利之一。”
在她的异议中，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官，埃琳娜·卡根大法官和凯坦吉·布朗·杰克森大法官，指控她的同事们支持一个国家的缔造者们无法想象的“完全行政控制”的理论。
索托马约尔写道:“其结果是，一位拥有比以往任何时候都大得多的权力的总统出现了。”。“然而，这种权力不是人民、国会或宪法赋予他的。在授予总统这种不受约束的权力时，最高法院颠覆了它的先例，曲解了我们的历史，并卸下了司法谦逊的伪装。我恭敬地表示异议。”
自新政时代以来，独立机构——历史上由两党的主题专家领导——监管股票交易、运输系统、竞选活动、消费品安全和广播许可证。
让总统更直接地控制谁在这些机构中任职一直是保守派的目标，他们反对未经选举的官僚行使太多权力而几乎没有责任。
这项裁决是自由主义者的损失，他们长期以来一直支持联邦贸易委员会、联邦选举委员会、证券交易委员会、联邦通信委员会等机构发挥作用，并为了监管的一致性而与政治绝缘。
法院的决定并没有取消这些机构本身，但如果总统愿意，将允许它们只由共和党人或民主党人组成，让白宫对它们的职能有更直接的控制。
保守派多数派实际上否决了最高法院1935年的一致决定，该决定涉及FTC - Humphrey的遗嘱执行人诉美国，此前该决定确认了对总统仅出于原因解雇委员会成员的能力的限制。
首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨在12月的口头辩论中直言不讳地说:“汉弗莱的遗嘱执行人只是人们过去认为的干瘪的外壳。”。
In major blow to independent agencies, Supreme Court upholds Trump firing of FTC commissioner
In a landmark decision that could transform the federal government, the Supreme Court has voted to allow President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter, for policy reasons, rolling back 90 years of legal precedent that had prevented at-will removal of independent agency officials and significantly expanding presidential power.
The 6-3 decision came from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Writing for the majority, Roberts declared "for cause" removal protections imposed by Congress at more than two dozen independent, bipartisan government agencies a violation of the separation of powers.
"What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms -- the President may remove his subordinates at will," Roberts wrote.
The decision gives Trump and future presidents more control over the government and effectively ends the bipartisan, independent nature of regulatory agencies that oversee many aspects of American life.
President Trump, in a post to his social media platform,calledthe Supreme Court's decisiona "BIG WIN" and "one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers."
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, accused her colleagues of endorsing a theory of "total executive control" unimagined by the nation's founders."The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before," Sotomayor wrote. "It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him. In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty. I respectfully dissent."
Since the New Deal era, independent agencies -- historically led by subject-matter experts from both parties -- have policed stock trades, transportation systems, election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses.
Giving the president more direct control over who serves on those bodies has long been a goal of conservatives, who have objected to unelected bureaucrats wielding too much power with little accountability.
The ruling is a loss for liberals who have long championed a role for agencies like the FTC, Federal Election Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission and dozens of others insulated from politics in the interest of the regulatory consistency.
The court's decision does not eliminate the agencies themselves but will allow them to be packed with only Republicans or only Democrats, if a president wishes, giving the White House more direct control over their functions.
The conservative majority effectively overruled a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision involving the FTC -- Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. -- which had previously affirmed limits on a president's ability to fire members of the commission only for cause.
"Humphrey’s Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was," Chief Justice John Roberts said bluntly during oral arguments in December.
