official

Clipper Kris Dunn grabs Laker Maxi Kleber ‘s jersey in front of a ref Saturday at the Intuit Dome.

(Ronald Martinez / Getty Images)

The Lakers have been assessed five technical fouls in the last two games because of conduct with officials as frustration over inconsistent calls is starting to boil over. After Doncic, Jaxson Hayes and Marcus Smart were all given technical fouls in the third quarter of Thursday’s win over Utah, Doncic and Smart were T’ed up again Saturday in the first and third quarters, respectively.

“I think if any coach, any player, what we ask for is consistency,” Redick said. “And that’s not to single any official out or any crew out, it’s not about that. We need to know what it is night to night.”

Smart also drew a technical foul against Utah after attempting to talk to an official at halftime. When Smart walked away frustrated, he raised his middle finger toward the official, a gesture that got him fined $35,000 Saturday, the NBA announced.

“Sometimes you got to take the hit to get your point across,” Smart said Saturday.

Redick expressed additional frustration with the lack of transparency in the replay system and murky communication with officials. He said he has not received any feedback when he requests it and the distinction between plays that can and can’t be challenged appears to change every night.

The lack of communication has been frustrating for players as well, Smart said, who met with referees before the Utah game as a team captain, but still had his questions dismissed.

“The captain should be able to come talk to them,” Smart said. “They still don’t want to hear it. So control what you can control. They don’t want to talk, you know, you try and you move on. But it definitely is frustrating when you pour your heart out to this game and the feedback is literally waving you off, telling you to get out your face, and then giving you a tech because you’re asking a simple question.”

When an LAPD captain stood up during a meeting this fall and asked Chief Jim McDonnell to explain the role of his most trusted deputy, Dominic Choi, other top brass in attendance waited with anticipation for the reply.

Multiple department sources, who requested anonymity to discuss the private meeting and speak candidly about their boss, said McDonnell’s answer drew confused looks.

Some officials had began to wonder how closely the 66-year-old McDonnell, who stepped into the job in November 2024 after recent work in consulting and academia, was involved in day-to-day operations. Choi is often attached to his hip, and McDonnell has privately advised other senior staff to go through the assistant chief for key matters, leaving some uncertainty about how shots are called, the sources said.

At the senior staff meeting, McDonnell joked about not wanting to talk about Choi — who was not present in the room — behind his back, and told the captain that Choi was simply his “eyes and ears,” without offering more clarity, according to the sources.

The awkward exchange reflected the uncertainty that some LAPD officials feel about McDonnell’s leadership style.

Over the last year, The Times spoke with numerous sources, from high-ranking commanders to beat cops on the street, along with recently retired LAPD officials and longtime department observers, to gather insights on McDonnell’s first 12 months as the city’s top cop.

By some measures, McDonnell has been a success. Violent crime citywide has continued to decline. Despite the LAPD’s hiring struggles, officials say that applications by new recruits have been increasing. And support for the chief remains strong in some political circles, where backers lauded his ability to navigate so many challenges, most not of his own making — from the city’s financial crisis and civil unrest to the devastating wildfires that hit just two months after he was sworn in.

At the same time, shootings by police officers have increased to their highest levels in nearly a decade and the LAPD’s tactics at protests this summer drew both public outrage and lawsuits. Some longtime observers worry the department is sliding back into a defiant culture of past eras.

“You’ve got a department that’s going to bankrupt the city but doesn’t want to answer for what it is going to be doing,” said Connie Rice, a civil rights attorney.

In an interview with The Times, McDonnell said he is proud of how his department has performed. He said his bigger plans for the LAPD are slowly coming together.

McDonnell rose through the LAPD’s ranks early in his career, and acknowledged much has changed in the 14 years that he was away from the department. That’s why he has leaned “heavily” on the expertise of Choi, who served as interim chief before he took over, he said.

“He’s been a tremendous partner for me coming back,” McDonnell said.

Dominic Choi, who served as interim LAPD chief before Jim McDonnell was hired, speaks at a 2024 news conference with federal law enforcement officials.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

McDonnell added that he has relied just as much on his other command staff, encouraging them to think and act for themselves “to get the job done.”

Retired LAPD commander Lillian Carranza is among those saying the new chief has failed to shake things up after Michel Moore stepped down abruptly in January 2024.

Instead, she said, McDonnell has lacked the decisiveness required to make real changes in the face of resistance from the police union and others.

“It appears that the chief thought he was coming back to the LAPD from 15 years ago,” she said of McDonnell. “It’s been a disappointment because of the individuals that he’s promoted — it just seems like Michel Moore 2.0 again.”

There are notable contrasts in style and strategy between McDonnell and his predecessor.

Moore, who did not respond to a call seeking comment, often used his pulpit to try to get out ahead of potential crises. McDonnell has kept a lower profile. He has largely halted the regular press briefings that Moore once used to answer questions about critical incidents and occasionally opine on national issues.

Unlike Moore, who developed a reputation as a demanding manager who insisted on approving even minor decisions, McDonnell has seemingly embraced delegation. Still, his perceived deference to Choi, who also served as a top advisor to Moore, has led to questions about just how much has really changed. Choi has represented the department at nearly a fourth of all Police Commission meetings this year, a task usually performed by the chief.

Former LAPD Chief Michel Moore attends an event at the Police Academy on Dec. 7, 2023.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

It’s telling of their closeness, LAPD insiders said, that Choi occupies the only other suite on the 10th floor of LAPD headquarters with direct access, via a balcony, to McDonnell’s own office.

Choi did not respond to a request for comment.

Mayor Karen Bass chose McDonnell as chief after a lengthy nationwide search, picking him over candidates who would have been the first Black woman or first Latino to lead the department. He offered experience, having also served as police chief in Long Beach and as L.A. County sheriff.

McDonnell has mostly avoided the type of headline-grabbing scandals that plagued the department under Moore. Meanwhile, homicides citywide were on pace to reach a 60-year low — a fact that the mayor has repeatedly touted as her reelection campaign kicks into gear.

In a brief statement, the mayor commended McDonnell and said she looked forward to working with him to make the city safer “while addressing concerns about police interaction with the public and press.”

Jim McDonnell shakes hands with Mayor Karen Bass after being introduced as LAPD chief during a news conference at City Hall on Oct. 4, 2024.

(Ringo Chiu / For The Times)

McDonnell has taken steps to streamline the LAPD’s operations, including folding the department’s four homicide bureaus into the Robbery-Homicide Division and updating the department’s patrol plan to account for the department being down fewer officers.

John Lee, who chairs the City Council’s public safety committee, said the chief is the kind of experienced and steady leader the city needs as it gets ready to host the World Cup and Olympics. McDonnell, he said, deserves credit for guiding the LAPD through “unprecedented situations,” while largely delivering on promises to reduce crime and lift officer morale.

But among the rank and file, there is continued frustration with the department’s disciplinary system. The process, which critics outside the LAPD say rarely holds officers accountable, is seen internally as having a double standard that leads to harsh punishments for regular cops and slaps on the wrist for higher-ranking officials. Efforts at reform have repeatedly stalled in recent years.

McDonnell told The Times that officers have for years felt that the system was stacked against them. One of his priorities is “making the disciplinary system more fair in the eyes of those involved in it,” he said, and speeding up internal affairs investigations that can drag on for a year or more without “jeopardizing accountability or transparency.”

He said he’d like to give supervisors greater authority to quickly weed out complaints that “are demonstrably false on their face” based on body camera footage and other evidence.”

But the lack of progress on the issue has started to rankle the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union for officers below the rank of lieutenant. The League urged McDonnell to take action in a statement to The Times.

“The way we see it, the Chief is either going to leverage his mandate and implement change, much to the chagrin of some in his command staff that staunchly support the status quo, or he will circle the wagons around the current system and continue to run out the clock,” the statement read. ”There’s no need to keep booking conference rooms to meet and talk about ‘fixing discipline,’ it’s time to fish or cut bait.”

Perhaps more than anything, the ongoing federal immigration crackdown has shaped McDonnell’s first year as chief.

Although McDonnell is limited in what he can do in the face of raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies, some of the chief’s detractors say he is missing a moment to improve relations between police and citizens of a majority-Latino city.

The son of Irish immigrants from Boston, McDonnell drew criticism during President Trump’s first term when, as L.A. County sheriff, he allowed ICE agents access to the nation’s largest jail. As LAPD chief, McDonnell has often voiced his support for long-standing policies that restrict cooperation on civil immigration enforcement and limit what officers can ask members of the public about their status in the country.

“I get hate mail from two extremes: those that are saying we’re not doing enough to work with ICE and those that are saying we’re working with ICE too much,” McDonnell said.

U.S. Border Patrol Cmdr. Gregory Bovino marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building on Aug. 14.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Deputy Chief Alan Hamilton, who runs the department’s detective bureau, said McDonnell has to tread lightly politically and can’t follow the suggestion of some people that “we should use our law enforcement agencies to fight back against the feds.”

“He can’t come out and say, ‘We oppose ICE, get out of our city,’ like some of these other clowns are doing,” Hamilton said. “I mean, what, are you just trying to bring the wrath?”

But the LAPD’s response to the protests against Trump’s agenda has repeatedly led to bad optics. Officers have stepped in to keep the peace when angry crowds form at the scene of ICE arrests, which some said created the appearance of defending the federal actions.

During large demonstrations — which have occasionally turned unruly, with bricks and Molotov cocktails hurled by some in the crowds — LAPD officers on foot or horseback have not held back in swinging batons, firing less-lethal munitions and even launching tear gas, a measure that hadn’t been deployed on the streets of L.A. in decades.

Press rights organizations and a growing list of people who say they were injured by police have filed lawsuits, potentially adding to the tens of millions in the legal bills the department already faces for protest-related litigation from years that predated McDonnell.

Attorney Susan Seager, who is suing the department over its recent protest tactics, said that McDonnell has seemed unwilling to second-guess officers, even when confronted with clear video evidence of them violating court-imposed restrictions.

“I’ve never seen LAPD so unhinged at a protest shooting people,” she said.

An LAPD officer pushes back an anti-ICE protester during a rally on “No Kings Day” in downtown Los Angeles on June 14.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

McDonnell said that each use of force would be investigated thoroughly, and if necessary discipline would be imposed, but denied that his department’s response had been excessive.

What goes unmentioned by the LAPD’s detractors, he said, is how volatile and “kinetic,” protests have been, requiring officers to use all means available to them to avoid being overwhelmed by hostile crowds.

Reporters and others on the front lines should know the risks of being there, he said.

“If the journalists are in that environment, they sometimes get hit with less-lethal projectiles — as do our police officers who are in that same environment,” he said.

Philippine official said ‘a mere visit’ to the country does not support claims the men underwent ‘terrorist training’.

There is no evidence the suspected gunmen in the deadly Bondi Beach attack received military training in the southern Philippines, Manila’s national security adviser has said, as Australia announced plans to introduce measures to tighten the country’s hate speech laws.

In a Wednesday statement, Philippine National Security Adviser Eduardo Ano confirmed the two suspects in Sunday’s attack in Sydney, Australia – which saw 15 people killed after gunmen opened fire at a Jewish event – were in the country from November 1 to 28 this year.

Ano said immigration records showed that 50-year-old Sajid Akram and his 24-year-old son Naveed Akram travelled via the Philippine capital Manila to Davao City on the southern island of Mindanao. He added that Sajid had entered the country on an Indian passport, while Naveed entered on an Australian one.

Ano added that there was “no evidence” that the men had received “any form of military training” while in the country.

“A mere visit does not support allegations of terrorist training, and the duration of their stay would not have allowed for any meaningful or structured training,” he said.

The men mostly stayed in their hotel rooms when in Davao, according to a report by local news outlet MindaNews. Staff at the hotel said the pair checked in on November 1 and rarely went out for more than an hour at a time during their almost monthlong stay.

Australian authorities announced on Wednesday that Naveed Akram had been charged with 59 offences for his role in the attack, including murder and terror charges, when he woke from his coma. Sajid Akram, his father, was shot dead by police at the scene.

Ano also suggested that reports describing Mindanao – a Muslim-majority region in the Catholic-majority country, plagued by a decades-long secessionist conflict – as a “hotspot for violent extremism or Islamic State ideology” were “outdated and misleading”.

“Since the 2017 Marawi Siege, Philippine security forces have significantly degraded ISIS-affiliated groups in the country,” he said, referring to a five-month battle in which the ISIL-inspired Maute group seized the southern city and fought government forces.

“The remnants of these groups have been fragmented, deprived of leadership, and operationally degraded,” Ano added.

A 2014 peace agreement, which saw rebels drop their secessionist aspirations in exchange for a more powerful and better-funded Muslim autonomous region called Bangsamoro, has also brought a degree of calm to Mindanao.

But smaller rebel groups continue to carry out sporadic, deadly attacks across the restive southern Philippines’ region.

‘Also an attack on the Australian way of life’: Anthony Albanese

On Thursday, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese pledged to introduce new legislation cracking down on hate speech in response to the Bondi Beach attack, as he acknowledged that Australia had witnessed an increase in anti-Semitism since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, attacks on Israel, and Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Announcing the new measures at a news conference, Albanese said his government will seek to introduce legislation making it easier to charge people promoting hate speech and violence – including religious preachers – while new powers will be created to cancel or reject visas of people who spread “hate and division”.

The legislation would also develop a regime to target organisations whose leaders engage in hate speech, Albanese added.

Albanese said rising anti-Semitism “culminated on Sunday in one of the worst acts of mass murder that this country has ever seen”.

“It was an attack on our Jewish community – but it was also an attack on the Australian way of life. Australians are shocked and angry. I am angry. It is clear we need to do more to combat this evil scourge, much more,” he said.

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said on Wednesday he would recall the state parliament next week in order to pass urgent reforms on gun laws.

WASHINGTON — FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said Wednesday that he will resign from the bureau next month, ending a brief and tumultuous tenure in which he clashed with the Justice Department over the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files and was forced to reconcile the realities of his law enforcement job with provocative claims he made in his prior role as a popular podcast host.

The departure, which had been expected, would be among the highest-profile resignations of the Trump administration. It comes as FBI leadership has been buffeted by criticism over Director Kash Patel’s use of a government plane for personal purposes and social media posts about active investigations.

Bongino announced his planned departure in a post on X in which he said he was grateful for the “opportunity to serve with purpose.” He did not say precisely when in January he would leave or detail his future plans.

President Trump said earlier Wednesday, in response to a question about Bongino’s fate: “Dan did a great job. I think he wants to go back to his show.”

Bongino was always an unconventional pick for the No. 2 job at the FBI, a position that historically has entailed oversight of the bureau’s day-to-day operations and typically has been held by a career agent. Though he had previously worked as a New York City police officer and Secret Service agent, neither he nor Patel had any experience at the FBI before being picked for their jobs.

Nonetheless, Bongino was installed in the role in March by Trump after years as a conservative podcast host, where he used his platform to repeatedly rail against FBI leadership and to encourage conspiracy theories related to the Epstein sex-trafficking case and pipe bombs discovered in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.

Once in the position, Bongino struggled to placate elements of Trump’s base who expected him to quickly deliver the reform he had claimed was needed at the FBI and to uncover the truths he had said had been hidden by the federal government.

On the Epstein case, for instance, he had previously challenged the official ruling that the wealthy financier had taken his own life in a New York jail soon after his 2019 arrest. But once in the FBI, he said in a Fox News interview: “I’ve seen the whole file. He killed himself.”

Bongino had separately speculated as recently as last year that the pipe bombs placed on the eve of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot were an “inside job” and part of a “massive cover-up.” But after the FBI earlier this month arrested a 30-year-old Virginia man with no evident connection to the federal government, Bongino was pressed about his prior comments.

“I was paid in the past for my opinions,” Bongino said in a Fox News interview. “One day I will be back in that space, but that’s not what I’m paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director, and we base investigations on facts.”

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Statement comes as regional body says no evidence of fraud in November vote that Trump-backed candidate Asfura leads.

The head of Honduras’s National Electoral Council (CNE) has decried acts preventing the ongoing recount of the Central American country’s presidential election, as a regional body said there was no reason to suspect fraud in the November 30 vote.

Ana Paola Hall’s statement on Monday came amid ongoing protests and unrest over the unresolved election. Nasry Asfura, a right-wing businessman publicly supported by US President Donald Trump, has held a razor-thin lead over his top opponent, Salvador Nasralla.

At least 99 percent of votes have already been counted, but CNE has said that nearly 2,800 ballots will need to be re-examined through a special recount.

In a post on X, Hall said disturbances seen in the country’s capital, Tegucigalpa, have “prevented the necessary conditions for the special recount to begin”.

Observers have said infighting at the CNE, which is run by three officials each representing one of the major political parties, has delayed reaching the final results.

Both Nasralla, a conservative, and outgoing left-wing President Xiomara Castro have alleged vote tampering, although several international missions have dismissed the claims.

On Monday, the Organization of American States (OAS), a regional body, said that despite a lack of expertise in overseeing the election, there was not “any evidence that would cast doubt on the results”.

The OAS mission “urgently calls on the electoral authorities to immediately begin the special recount and to explore all possible ways to obtain the official results as quickly as possible,” OAS official Eladio Loizaga said in a report he read to the group’s members.

“The current delay in processing and publishing the results is not justifiable,” he said in the report.

The OAS statement added that its mission of 101 observers from 19 countries “did not observe any malice or obvious manipulation of the electoral materials or computer systems”. The finding was in line with that of a parallel European Union mission.

The election in Honduras had been in turmoil even before polls opened, with several major parties, political figures, and foreign interference for months casting doubt on the election’s integrity.

The most prominent scandal involved an investigation by the attorney general into a member of Asfura’s National Party for allegedly discussing plans with a military officer to influence the vote.

The candidate for outgoing President Castro’s LIBRE party, Rixi Moncada, later told Reuters news agency that the alleged conspiracy proved the election was “the most rigged in history”.

Several candidates have also criticised the influence of Trump, who endorsed Asfura in the final stretch of the race and vowed to withhold US funding if his candidate did not win.

The US president also pardoned former Honduran President and National Party member Juan Orlando Hernandez, who had been convicted in the US of drug trafficking, two days before the vote.

Authorities in Honduras, a country of about 11 million, subsequently issued a fresh arrest warrant for Hernandez.

ZARA McDermott has shared a brand new loved-up selfie with her One Direction star boyfriend.

The former Love Island contestant was celebrating her 29th birthday with her singer partner Louis Tomlinson as they posed for the cosy picture.

Zara donned a woolly hat and coat for the wintertime selfie as she flashed her pearly whites whilst cuddling up to Louis in the snap.

Captioning the image, Zara wrote: “The best birthday ever with you & the final year of my 20’s !!”

The pair had spent the day together celebrating and marking Zara’s first birthday since they have been a couple.

The Sun were the first to reveal at the start of the year that Zara and Louis had begun dating each other just weeks after she split from long-term partner, reality star, Sam Thompson.

Read More on Zara & Louis

LOVED-UP

Zara & Louis to take romance to next level at Xmas after under a year of dating

just love-ly

Louis Tomlinson tells Zara McDermott ‘I love you’ in rare public comment

This new image is a rare public show of affection from the couple with Zara and Louis often choosing to keep their romance away from social media.

Louis has never shared an image of the couple on his main social media feed.

But they appear more loved-up than ever thanks to their latest snap.

Commenting underneath the snap, one fan said: “Omgg you’re the sweetest couple. Happy birthday sweetheart.”

As another penned: “The cutest pic I’ve seen in a while!! U look so happy, I love it.”

A third also commented: “Happy birthday Zara!!! And this completely makes my morning! So happy for you guys!!”

It comes as her ex Sam also began to post his new romance to Instagram.

Sam is in the very early days of a romance with influencer Talitha Balinska but he has been quick to flaunt it online.

Sam began dating DJ Talitha back in October but he has now begun to post about the star after they also posed for a loved-up snap during a dinner with his Made in Chelsea co-star pals.

Sam announced at the beginning of December that he and Talitha had made things “official”.

Speaking to his best pal Pete Wicks on their Staying Relevant podcast, Sam confirmed they had taken their romance to the next level.

He said excitedly: “I’ve got a girlfriend. I’ve got a girlfriend!”

He also had a brief romance with Love Island star Samie Elishi earlier this year with them regularly being pictured snogging in public but it soon fizzled out.

Zara and Sam split in January 2025 when she chose to end the relationship after five years.

She began dating Louis just weeks later.

Zara and Sam were also plagued by a cheating shock when it was revealed that the BBC Three star had cheated on Sam during the early days of their romance.

She broke down in tears when begging for him back amid the infidelity in an infamous Made in Chelsea scene.

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.