The Bureaucratic Blob Shrinks: What the Slaughter Decision Means for Accountability

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. Slaughter has sent shockwaves through Washington, but its implications extend far beyond the Beltway. At first glance, it may seem like a victory for President Trump and his allies, who have long sought to exert greater control over the executive branch. However, upon closer inspection, this decision is actually a crucial step towards restoring accountability in government.

For decades, independent agencies have been a thorn in the side of elected officials. These so-called “independent” bureaucrats are protected from removal by statute, allowing them to insulate themselves from voter control and preserve their own agendas even after elections. This has led to a creeping sense of unease among constitutional scholars, who have long worried about the erosion of democratic institutions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) legitimized this phenomenon by allowing agencies like the FTC to exercise “executive functions” that were not explicitly authorized by the Constitution. This was a clever semantic trick, but one that ultimately undermined the separation of powers and created a culture of impunity among bureaucrats.

The Slaughter decision finally puts an end to this charade, recognizing that the protection of commissioners from removal is unconstitutional and that executive agencies cannot be independent of the president. This may seem like a blow to federal regulators, but it’s actually a necessary corrective to our age of undemocratic bureaucracy.

By re-centering executive power in the president, the Court is restoring accountability to government decision-making. As Peter M. Shane notes, this is not just about politics; it’s about preserving the Constitution’s separation of powers and ensuring that elected officials are truly accountable to voters.

The decision also has significant implications for personnel policy. If the president cannot fire his subordinates, they can escape electoral accountability, leaving him powerless to hold them responsible for their actions. This undermines the very principle of democratic governance, where leaders are answerable to the people who elected them.

Some critics will object that this decision imperils the independence of regulatory agencies. However, this misreads the Constitution’s intentions. The appointments clause implies a president’s authority to both hire and fire executive subordinates, which is essential for ensuring accountability in government.

The Founding Fathers understood this principle well. In 1789, James Madison and his congressional colleagues recognized the importance of the president’s removal power for maintaining accountability in government. By limiting this power, we risk creating an unaccountable bureaucracy that threatens the very foundations of our democracy.

The Slaughter decision may be a setback for some federal agencies, but it’s a crucial step towards restoring democratic governance and ensuring that elected officials are truly accountable to voters. As we move forward, one thing is clear: accountability has won a major victory, and the bureaucratic blob has been significantly reduced.