President Donald Trump has recently tried to dismiss Gwin Wilcox and his former chairman of the National Labor Committee (NLRB). This end is only one of many similar actions taken by Trump, but it can also cause a legal battle that can significantly increase the authority of the president, so even in a unique and important movement by Trump. there is.
The same officials as the leaders of most federal agencies may be freely fired by the president. However, the Federal Law states that NLRB members, like the highest staff of many similar institutions, may be deleted to “ignore duties or neglect”. Therefore, this law does not eliminate her until the time of the inauguration expires, unless Trump has ignored her obligations or engaged in fraudulent acts.
However, many of the Federal Justice, including all six Republican members in the Supreme Court, have subscribed to legal theory known as “unified executive officers.” Unitie Executive dominates the work of all the federal governments, not part of Congress and justice, in their strongest form. In other words, he can be hired and fired freely. That's all for it.
If Wilcox decides to disagree with Trump's decision to dismiss her, it may cause one of the most consequences of Trump's two terms. Even so, Trump's administration seems to be ready to fire so many federal staff. If Trump wins the contest, he not only gains the authority to determine how the labor law is enforced, but also has the authority to re -change (or destroy) the US economy. Gain unprecedented power to such institutions.
In other words, these dismissal disputes may be one of the most important milestones for converting Trump from a civil servant to a king.
So, exactly, what are the unified executives?
The idea of unified executives begins with a seemingly harmless passage of the Constitution, saying that “execution is given to the United States President.” This provision, as pointed out by a unitie executive supporter and said by Judge Antonin Skaria in a famous opposition. Some Executive power, but all “Executive power” is held by the president.
However, one of the fact that the constitution is not very clear is what “execution” is.
Some answers to this question are Morrison vs Olson (1988), when Skaria wrote the resulting opposition. Morrison In support of the 1978 law, which expired in 1999, he was able to appoint an “independent lawyer” who has the authority to investigate and prosecute a high -level government staff.
Importantly, this independent lawyer is not completely managed by the president or the president's subordinates, and “legitimate reasons, physical disorders, mental incompetence, or other things that are substantially damaged. Such an independent lawyer was deleted by the judge.
The court supported laws and regulations 7-1, advocated only Scaria, and disagree to write one of the basic texts of unified execution theory.
Skaria claims that “government investigation and crime prosecution is a typical execution function,” and this authority is not insulated by the President. According to SCALIA's view, all execution functions must be given the President, so there can be a federal prosecutor who could not be fired by the president, such as the President, and the President, who could not be fired. Because it wasn't.
How did Scalia's opinion give Trump's power to order the enemy's malicious prosecution?
Scaria's claim that “crime investigation and prosecution are typically executive functions” are cited prominently. Trump vs. the United States (2024), the Republican justice decision is that Donald Trump has a wide range of exemptions from prosecution against the crime that uses his official presidential forces. It features a major feature of a section that makes Trump order to target the Judicious Ministry to target his political rivals.
According to the justice of the Republican Party Playing cardSince the prosecution's decision is a “special state of the administrative agency,” the parliamentary law to limit the authority to command the President's authority because the constitution will generate the entire executive power of the president. I can't do it. Open a prosecutor or a specific survey targeting a specific individual.
Thus, unified executives have grown into a rule that allowed a defensive rule, prosecution campaign and prosecution campaign to political rivals, from the control of the possibility of being fired.
It is noteworthy that Scaria's claim that the prosecutor is a “typical executive function” is based on a weak historical basis. As the law professor Jed Shoe German wrote in an essay in 2019, early Americans, including many people who have broken the constitution, have a much more delicate view of who can do prosecutors. I had it.
Shoe German claims that the prosecution led by a private lawyer is the standard “until the mid -19th century”. Some states, including Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, maintain traces of this old system.
Similarly, Shoe German states that “the federal judge himself looked like a prosecution during the 1794 whiskey rebellion.” The current law may appoint the Federal District Judge to appoint a provisional US lawyer, who supervises almost all federal prosecutions in a particular geographical area in a particular case.
Therefore, Scaria's idea that prosecutors are exclusive to executives are quite new ideas. Nevertheless, it has enjoyed a very powerful support from the majority of the Supreme Court Republican Party, and this concept can form a law for years.
Why is the WILLCOx firing so important?
One of the uncertain questions is that this court is operated by multi -member boards, not a single leader like most federal governments, despite the general support of a single execution theory. Whether to extend the theory to an institution like NLRB.
in Humphrei executor vs. the United States (1935), the Supreme Court supported the law to protect five committee members of the Federal Trade Commission, except for “inefficiency, duties, or misconduct.” Many of the court decisions are rooted in FTC's claims that “duty is neither political nor execution, but is mainly semi -judicial and standard.” The court also pointed out that the FTC design also guarantees the members to “act in all -fairness” and assume that they will “exercise the training of experts”. did.
This rule is to establish that the multi -member agency is not subject to presidential ruling than an institution with one director, but the court's recent decision is to approve a single executive. difficult. However, these recent decisions are dancing mainly on what to do. Humphrei executor -In many cases, criticize the decision, but have not yet rejected it.
Some of the hires may be due to an important role in which one federal agency plays the federal preparation system, which is a multiple board of directors.
The federal preparation system is to balance the growth of employment and to control inflation. If the Fed cannot act independently with the President, the president will make the president temporarily stimulate the economy, despite this stimulus will eventually cause more harm. It may be pressure to lower interest rates. If the Fed did nothing.
This is not a hypothetical concern. In 1971, President Richard Nixon put pressure on the Fed Arthur Bahns to lower interest rates prior to Nixon's re -election race. Barns obeyed. The economy was booming in 1972, and Nixon was re -elected by historical landslide. However, Burns' actions are often accused of the long -standing “stagflation” in the 1970s, that is, for a slow economic growth in combination with high inflation.
In order to prevent this from happening again, members of the Governor of the Federal Reserve have enjoyed the same legal protection to NLRB members and the president wants to fire them. You cannot fire alone. To be Humphrei executor However, it means that a single executive organization applies to members of the Fed Board of Directors, which means that Trump (or future presidents) effectively gain power to lower interest rates. Masu.
Is there a person who can't fire Trump under a single execution theory?
A single execution theory suggests that Trump can literally fire people who want to launch within the federal agency, regardless of whether Trump is a civil servant protected by law. I am. However, even in the Supreme Court, Trump is unlikely that all of the federal governments nearly 3 million private employees can deprive the protection of civil servants. Skaria is sacred Morrison The opposition is not so much. Instead, it suggests that the general rule of the federal government employees is limited to “US officers”.
The Constitution describes the process that must be appointed, but does not clearly define who will be counted as an officer. In addition, the Supreme Court's opinion on this topic is even more vague. One opinion explained the U.S. officers as a person who “gave important authority in accordance with US laws.”
In other words, as a practical problem, a public servant who was fired by Trump or his subordinates would exercise “important authority” and be counted as an executive if they wanted to regain their work. You will need to sue. 。 Non -experts can maintain the protection of civil servants, but executives may be deemed to be dominated by the presidential execution.
It will put a heavy burden on the fired civil servant who wants to fight for their job, but if a relatively low -ranked civil servant engages in this battle, they may eventually win. Nevertheless, it is still a big deal if all the Trump gains is the power to dismiss public servants who exercise “important authority”. Someone can do a lot to rebuild the organization.
It is still unknown how the first stage of this battle is deployed in court. If Wilcock (or other end -of -term officials) decide to launch a firing, it will give the judiciary a vehicle that they can use to dramatically expand Trump's power.
