president

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s conservatives sounded ready on Monday to overrule Congress and give President Trump more power to fire officials at independent agencies and commissions.

The justices heard arguments on whether Trump could fire Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic appointees on the five-member Federal Trade Commission.

The case poses a clash between Congress’ power to structure the government versus the president’s “executive power.”

A ruling for Trump portends a historic shift in the federal government — away from bipartisan experts and toward more partisan control by the president.

Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the court should overturn a 1935 decision that upheld independent agencies. The decision “was grievously wrong when decided. It must be overruled,” he told the court.

The court’s three liberals strongly argued against what they called a “radical change” in American government.

If the president is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies, they said, the longstanding civil service laws could be struck down as well.

It would put “massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power in the hands of the president,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

But the six conservatives said they were concerned that these agencies were exercising “executive power” that is reserved to the president.

It was not clear, however, whether the court will rule broadly to cover all independent agencies or focus narrowly on the FTC and other similar commissions.

For most of American history, Congress has created independent boards and commissions to carry out specific missions, each led by a board of experts who were appointed with a fixed term.

But the court’s current conservative majority has contended these commissions and boards are unconstitutional if their officials cannot be fired at will by a new president.

Past presidents had signed those measures into law, and a unanimous Supreme Court upheld them 90 years ago in a case called Humphrey’s Executor vs. U.S.

In creating such bodies, Congress often was responding to the problems of a new era.

The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to regulate railroad rates. The FTC, the focus of the court case, was created in 1914 to investigate corporate monopolies. The year before, the Federal Reserve Board was established to supervise banks, prevent panics and regulate the money supply.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the stock market and the National Labor Relations Board to resolve labor disputes.

Decades later, Congress focused on safety. The National Transportation Safety Board was created to investigate aviation accidents, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission investigates products that may pose a danger. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission protects the public from nuclear hazards.

Typically, Congress gave the appointees, a mix of Republicans and Democrats, a fixed term and said they could be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was first appointed by Trump to a Democratic seat and was reappointed by President Biden in 2023 for a seven-year term.

But conservatives often long derided these agencies and commissions as an out-of-control “administrative state,” and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said he believes their independence from direct presidential control is unconstitutional.

“The President’s power to remove — and thus supervise — those who wield executive power on his behalf follows from the text” of the Constitution, he wrote last year in his opinion, which declared for the first time that a president has immunity from being prosecuted later for crimes while in office.

Roberts spoke for a 6-3 majority in setting out an extremely broad view of presidential power while limiting the authority of Congress.

The Constitution in Article I says Congress “shall have the power…to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution…all other powers vested” in the U.S. government. Article II says, “the executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.”

The current court majority believes that the president’s executive power prevails over the power of Congress to set limits by law.

“Congress lacks authority to control the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to executive officers of the United States,” Roberts wrote last year in Trump vs. United States.

Four months later, Trump won reelection and moved quickly to fire a series of Democratic appointees who had fixed terms set by Congress. Slaughter, along with several other fired appointees, sued, citing the law and her fixed term. They won before federal district judges and the U.S. Court of Appeals.

But Trump’s lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court, and the justices, by 6-3 votes, sided with the president and against the fired officials.

In September, the court said it would hear arguments in the case of Trump vs. Slaughter to decide on whether to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor decision.

At the time, conservatives applauded the move. “For far too long, Humphrey’s Executor has allowed unaccountable agencies like the FTC to wield executive power without meaningful oversight,” said Cory Andrews, general counsel for the Washington Legal Foundation.

In defense of the 1935 decision, law professors noted the court said that these independent boards were not purely executive agencies, but also had legislative and judicial duties, like adopting regulations or resolving labor disputes.

During Monday’s argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the principle of “democratic accountability” called for deferring to Congress, not the president.

“Congress decided that some matters should be handled by nonpartisan experts. They said expertise matters with respect to the economy and transportation. So having the president come in and fire all the scientists and the doctors and the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists is actually is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States,” she said.

But that argument gained no traction with Roberts and the conservatives. They said the president is elected and has the executive authority to control federal agencies.

The only apparent doubt involved the Federal Reserve Board, whose independence is prized by business. The Chamber of Commerce said the court should overrule the 1935 decision, but carve out an exception for the Federal Reserve.

Trump’s lawyer grudgingly agreed. If “an exception to the removal power exists,” he wrote in his brief in the Slaughter case, it should be “an agency-specific anomaly” limited to the Federal Reserve.

“60 Minutes” is back in President Trump’s crosshairs.

Trump went after the prestigious CBS News program following an interview Sunday with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), his once ardent ally who is leaving Congress in January.

Correspondent Lesley Stahl had a brutally candid sit-down with Greene, who went into detail on her break with the president. Trump has called Greene a traitor, which Green said has led to death threats to her and her family. Greene also said the president is not focusing on the issues most important to his supporters and that many of her colleagues only support him out of fear.

Trump posted on his Truth Social platform blasting Greene and CBS News, which earlier this year paid him $16 million to settle a lawsuit he filed over the network’s handling of an interview with his 2024 opponent, former Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump’s post said the reason Greene “went BAD is that she was JILTED by the President of the United States. (Certainly not the first time she has been jilted),” and called her a “low IQ traitor.”

But Trump added that his “real problem” with the interview is that parent company Paramount allowed the program to air. Trump had praised CBS News since Paramount was acquired by Skydance Media run by David Ellison, who along with his father Larry has a warm relationship with the president.

Trump has also spoken positively about the hiring of Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief for CBS News. Weiss took on the role after Paramount acquired her heterodox digital news platform “The Free Press.” She met Trump when he recently sat for a “60 Minutes” interview.

But the good vibes didn’t last long.

“THEY ARE NO BETTER THAN THE OLD OWNERSHIP, who just paid me millions of Dollars for FAKE REPORTING about your favorite President, ME!” Trump wrote. “Since they bought it, 60 Minutes has actually gotten WORSE!”

Trump ended his missive by demanding “a complete and total APOLOGY, though far too late to be meaningful, from Lesley Stahl and 60 Minutes for her incorrect and Libelous statements about Hunter’s Laptop!!!”

Representatives for CBS News did not respond to a request for comment.

Greene’s falling out with Trump. began when she supported the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. She has since sided with Democrats on funding subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, has been critical of the White House policy on Israel and complained the White House has not focused seriously enough on voter concerns about the rising cost of living.

The one-time loyalist who was frequently seen in a red “Make America Great Again” cap, also called out her fellow Republican members of Congress who she said support Trump out of fear of retribution.

“I think they’re terrified to step outta line and get a nasty Truth Social post on them,” Greene said.

Asked if her colleagues are supportive of Trump privately, Greene said “it would shock people how they talk about him” behind the scenes.

“I watched many of my colleagues go from making fun of him, making fun of how he talks, making fun of me constantly for supporting him, to when he won the primary in 2024 they all started — excuse my language, Lesley — kissing his ass and decided to put on a MAGA hat for the first time,” Greene said.

Five months after joining the U.S. Senate, Adam Schiff delivered a floor speech on what he called “the top 10 deals for Donald Trump and the worst deals for the American people.”

Schiff spoke of Trump and his family getting rich off cryptocurrency and cutting new development deals across the Middle East, and of the president accepting a free jet from the Qatari government. Meanwhile, he said, average Americans were losing their healthcare, getting priced out of the housing market and having to “choose between rent or groceries.”

“Trump gets rich. You get screwed,” the Democrat said.

The speech was classic Schiff — an attempt by the former prosecutor to wrangle a complex set of graft allegations against Trump and his orbit into a single, cohesive corruption case against the president, all while serving up his own party’s preferred messaging on rising costs and the lack of affordability.

It was also a prime example of the tack Schiff has taken since being sworn in one year ago to finish the final term of the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a titan of California politics who held the seat for more than 30 years before dying in office in 2023.

Schiff — now serving his own six-year term — has remained the unblinking antagonist to Trump that many Californians elected him to be after watching him dog the president from the U.S. House during Trump’s first term in the White House. He’s also continued to serve as one of the Democratic Party’s most talented if slightly cerebral messengers, hammering Trump over his alleged abuses of power and the lagging economy, which has become one of the president’s biggest liabilities.

Schiff has done so while also defending himself against Trump’s accusations that he committed mortgage fraud on years-old loan documents; responding to the devastating wildfires that ripped through the Los Angeles region in January; visiting 25 of California’s 58 counties to meet more of his nearly 40 million constituents; grilling Trump appointees as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee; and struggling to pass legislation as a minority member of a profoundly dysfunctional Congress that recently allowed for the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history.

It’s been an unusual and busy freshman year, attracting sharp criticism from the White House but high praise from his allies.

“Pencil Neck Shifty Schiff clearly suffers from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome that clouds his every thought,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson. “It’s too bad for Californians that Pencil Neck is more focused on his hatred of the President than he is on the issues that matter to them.”

“He’s been great for California,” said Rep. Robert Garcia of Long Beach, ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee who endorsed Schiff’s opponent, former Rep. Katie Porter, in the Senate primary. “He’s not afraid of taking on Trump, he’s not afraid of doing tough oversight, he’s not afraid of asking questions, and it’s clear that Donald Trump is scared of Adam Schiff.”

“While he may be a freshman in the Senate,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), “he’s certainly no rookie.”

Attempts to legislate

Before he became known nationally for helping to lead Trump’s first-term impeachments and investigate the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters, Schiff was known as a serious legislator. Since joining the Senate, he has tried to reclaim that reputation.

He has introduced bills to strengthen homes against wildfires and other natural disasters, give tax relief to Los Angeles fire victims, strengthen California’s fire-crippled insurance market, study AI’s impact on the American workforce, reinstate a national assault weapons ban and expand federal tax credits for affordable housing.

He has also introduced bills to end Trump’s tariffs, rein in the powers of the executive branch, halt the president and other elected officials from getting rich off cryptocurrencies, and end the White House-directed bombing campaign on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean.

None of that legislation has passed.

Schiff said he’s aware that putting his name on legislation might diminish its chances of gaining support, and at times he has intentionally taken a back seat on bills he’s worked on — he wouldn’t say which — to give them a better shot of advancing. But he said he also believes Democrats need to “point out what they’re for” to voters more often, and is proud to have put his name on bills that are important to him and he believes will bring down costs for Californians.

As an example, he said his recent Housing BOOM (Building Occupancy Opportunity for Millions) Act is about building “millions of new homes across America, like we did after World War II, that are affordable for working families,” and is worth pushing even if Republicans resist it.

“As we saw with the healthcare debate, when Republicans aren’t acting to bring costs down, when they’re doing things that make costs go up instead, we can force them to respond by putting forward our own proposals to move the country forward,” he said. “If Republicans continue to be tone deaf to the needs of the American people, with President Trump calling the affordability issue a hoax, then they’re gonna get the same kind of shellacking that they did in the election last month.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), a staunch ally, called Schiff a “legislative genius” who is “giving people hope” with his bills, which could pass if Democrats win back the House next year.

“He has a vision for our country. He has knowledge of issues par excellence from all of the years that he’s served. He’s a strategic thinker,” she said. “I wouldn’t question how he decides to take up a bill just because what’s-his-name’s in the White House.”

Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant, said Schiff’s prominent position on Trump’s enemies list of course hurts his chances of passing legislation, but the hyper-partisan nature of Congress means his chances weren’t great to begin with.

Meanwhile, being seen as working for solutions clearly serves him and his party well, Madrid said, adding, “He’s probably accomplishing more socially than he ever could legislatively.”

Criticism and praise

For months, Trump and his administration have been accusing several prominent Democrats of mortgage-related crimes. Trump has accused Schiff of mortgage fraud for claiming primary residency in both California and Maryland, which Schiff denies.

So far, nothing has come of it. Schiff said that he has not been interviewed by federal prosecutors, who are reportedly skeptical of the case, and that he doesn’t know anything about it other than that it is “a broad effort to silence and intimidate the president’s critics.”

Schiff’s supporters and other political observers in the state either ignored the issue when asked about Schiff’s first year, were dismissive of it or said they saw it as a potential asset for the senator.

“Adam Schiff is a person of great integrity, and people know that,” Pelosi said.

“Probably one of the best things that could happen to Schiff is if Trump actually goaded the [Justice Department] to charge him for mortgage fraud, and then for the case to be thrown out in court,” said Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist — noting that is what happened with a similar case brought against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James.

“He’s really benefited from having Trump put a target on his back,” South said. “In California, that’s not a death knell, that’s a life force.”

Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who chairs the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which Schiff sits on, said California represents a big part of the nation’s agriculture industry and having Schiff on the committee “is a good thing not just for California, but for our overall efforts to support farmers and producers nationwide.”

“I have known Sen. Schiff since we served in the House together, and we are both committed to advocating farmers’ and rural America’s needs in a bipartisan way,” Boozman said. “We look forward to more opportunities to advance these goals together.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has “a cordial, professional relationship” with Schiff, a spokesperson said.

Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, declined to comment. Riverside Sheriff Chad Bianco, the leading Republican in the race for governor, did not respond to a request for comment.

Looking ahead

What comes next for Schiff will depend in part on whether Democrats win back a majority in Congress. But people on both sides of the political aisle said they expect big things from him regardless.

Garcia said Schiff will be “at the center of holding the Trump administration accountable” no matter what happens. “Obviously, in the majority, we’re going to have the ability to subpoena, and to hold hearings, and to hold the administration accountable in a way that we don’t have now, but even in the minority, I think you see Adam’s strong voice pretty constant.”

Kevin Spillane, a veteran GOP strategist, said he doesn’t make much of Schiff’s economic messaging because voters in California know that Democrats have caused the state’s affordability crisis by raising taxes and imposing endless regulations.

But Schiff is already “the second-most important Democrat in California” after Newsom, he said, and his hammering on affordability could propel him even further if voters start to see him as working toward solutions.

Rob Stutzman, another Republican consultant, said he can see Schiff in coming years “ascend to the Feinstein role” of “the caretaker of California in the U.S. Congress” — someone with “the ability to broker deals” on hugely important issues such as water and infrastructure. But to do so, Stutzman said, Schiff “needs to extract himself from the political meme of being a Trump antagonist.”

Schiff said he knew heading to the Senate as Trump returned to the White House that he would be dividing his time “between delivering for California and fighting the worst of the Trump policies.” But his efforts to fix the economy and his efforts to resist Trump are not at odds, he said, but deeply intertwined.

“When people feel like the quality of life their parents had was better, and the future for their kids looks like it’s even more in doubt, all too many are ready to entertain any demagogue who comes along promising they alone can fix it. They start to question whether democracy really works,” he said. “So I don’t think we’re going to put our democracy on a solid footing until we have our economy on a solid footing.”

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.