conservative majority

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Wednesday appealed a ruling blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook as he seeks more control over the traditionally independent board.

The notice of appeal came hours after U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb handed down the ruling. The White House has insisted Trump, a Republican, has the right to fire Cook over over allegations raised by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she bought before she joined the Fed.

The case could soon reach the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority has allowed Trump to fire several board members of other independent agencies but has suggested that power has limitations at the Federal Reserve.

Cook’s lawyers have argued that firing her was unlawful because presidents can only fire Fed governors for cause, which has typically meant poor job performance or misconduct. The judge found the president’s removal power is limited to actions taken during a governor’s time in office.

Cook is accused of saying that both her properties, in Michigan and Georgia, were primary residences, which could have resulted in lower down payments and mortgage rates. Her lawsuit denied the allegations without providing details. Her attorneys said she should have gotten a chance to respond to them before getting fired.

Trump has repeatedly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not cutting the short-term interest rate the Fed controls more quickly. If Trump can replace Cook, he may be able to gain a 4-3 majority on the Fed’s governing board.

No president has sought to fire a Fed governor before. Economists prefer independent central banks because they can do unpopular things like lifting interest rates to combat inflation more easily than elected officials can.

Cook is set to participate in a Fed meeting next week. The meeting is expected to reduce its key short-term rate by a quarter-point to between 4% and 4.25%.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court signaled again this week that it believes the president has the full power to control federal agencies, including by sharply cutting their staffs and their spending.

It’s the latest example of the court’s conservative majority intervening to rule for President Trump and against federal district judges. They have done so in brief orders with no explanation, prompting further criticism from Democrats and progressives.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues have made clear over many years that they believe the president’s “executive power” includes controlling agencies and firing officials, even those who were deemed “independent” by Congress.

On Monday, the court issued a one-line order setting aside the decision of a federal judge in Boston who said the Education Department must rehire about 1,400 staffers who had been laid off.

Trump’s attorneys had appealed in early June, arguing the administration was “streamlining” the department while “acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate” it.

Democratic state attorneys had sued to stop the layoffs, arguing Trump was effectively “dismantling” the department, and the judge agreed the layoffs were illegal.

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

Democrats and progressives condemned the decisions and the majority’s refusal to explain its reasons.

Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center, said the justices “have let Trump amass vast new power, and they have done so without putting their names on it. They are proving willing accomplices to a constitutional coup, all without leaving a trace.”

In May, Roberts and the court upheld Trump’s dismissal of Democratic appointees to the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of whom had fixed terms set by Congress.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said. “Both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power.”

The three liberals dissented.

Peter M. Shane, a New York University law professor, has written extensively on the so-called “unitary executive theory” and said it explains why Trump has been winning since he returned to the White House.

“Trump’s use of executive power is not a distortion of the Roberts court’s theory of the presidency,” he said. “It is the court’s theory of the presidency come to life.”

Still pending before the court this week is an appeal from Trump’s lawyers that seeks the firing of three Democratic appointees to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The commissioners have seven-year terms, but in May, the Trump White House told the three Democratic appointees they had been “terminated.”

They sued and won a reinstatement order from a federal judge in Baltimore.

The recent rulings from the court have come on emergency appeals at the early stage of a lawsuit. The court’s majority said Trump’s initiatives may go into effect while the litigation continues. But at some point, the justices will have to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the underlying legal issue.

In ruling for the three officials the CPSC, the judge in Baltimore pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision which protected the constitutionality of “traditional multi-member independent agencies.”

The court’s opinion in the case of Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and those who served on a board “with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions.”

But that precedent has been endangered in recent years.

Five years ago, Roberts spoke for the court and ruled the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau can be fired by the president, even though Congress had said otherwise.

But since that case did not involve a multi-member board or commission, it did not overrule the 1935 precedent.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties.

The decision comes after the court’s conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger.

The court’s latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured to a naval base in Djibouti weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision.

The majority wrote that their decision on June 23 completely halted Murphy’s ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight “unenforceable.” The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket.

Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. “Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor wrote.

Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face “imprisonment, torture and even death” if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war.

“We know they’ll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday.

The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump’s Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy’s finding “a lawless act of defiance.”

The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can’t quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S.

Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden, didn’t prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.

The men have been held in a converted shipping container on the naval base in Djibouti since Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal to South Sudan. They have since expressed a fear of being sent there, Realmuto said.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.