Originally posted by the Voice of America.
Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America,
a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in
the public domain.


US High Court Debates Presidential Power to Fire Agency Heads

Associated Press

   WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court wrestled Tuesday with how much power the
   president should have to fire the head of an independent agency, a
   question important to future presidents of both parties.

   The high court heard arguments in a case involving the Consumer
   Financial Protection Bureau, the agency Congress created in response to
   the 2008 financial crisis.

   The agency was the brainchild of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth
   Warren, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, and arguments took
   place as voters in 14 states were deciding whom they want to nominate
   to take on President Donald Trump in the next presidential election.

   At the Supreme Court, Trump's administration argued that the president
   should be able to fire the CFPB's head for any reason. It was unclear
   from arguments how the court mightrule, but the case seemed to divide
   the court's liberal and conservative members, with Chief Justice John
   Roberts' vote key to the outcome.

   Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's most recent appointee to the court,
   suggested existing restrictions on the president's ability to fire the
   head of the CFPBwere "troubling" because they meantthat a new president
   could be saddled with a CFPB director appointed in the previous
   administration.

   "The next president in 2021 or 2025, or whenever, will have to deal
   with a CFPB director appointed by the prior president potentially for
   his or her whole term without being able ... to do anything about that
   difference in policy," Kavanaugh said.

   'Modest' restrictions

   But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed willing to let the restrictions
   stand, describing them as "modest."

   "It stops the president fromatwhim removing someone, replacing someone
   with someone who is loyal to the president rather than to the consumers
   that the bureau is set up to serve," she said.

   Under the Dodd-Frank Act that created the CFPB, its director is
   appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year
   term. The president can remove a director only for "inefficiency,
   neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."

   It was unclear from arguments whether the justices might let the
   restriction stand but interpret it in a way that gives the president
   broad power to remove the director; strip the restriction from the law;
   or resolve the case another way.

   Defenders of the law's removal provision say it insulates the agency's
   head from presidential pressure. But detractors say the restriction is
   unconstitutional and improperly limits the power of the president.

   The impact of the justices' decision in the case could go beyond the
   CFPB because the heads of other so-called independent agencies have a
   similar restriction on being fired. Those agencies include the Federal
   Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Federal Trade Commission,
   Federal Communications Commission and Securities and Exchange
   Commission. Unlike the CFPB, however, those agencies are headed by
   multimember boards.

   How case originated

   The case was brought to the court by the Orange County,
   California-based consumer law firm Seila Law. As part of an
   investigation, the CFPB demanded information and documents from the
   firm, which is run by a solo practitioner. Seila Law responded by
   challenging the CFPB's structure.

   Two lower courts ruled against the law firm, upholding the restrictions
   on president's power to remove the CFPB's director. The fact that the
   dispute in front of the justices wasn't the result of the president
   trying to fire the CFPB's director weighed on at least one justice.

   "Shouldn't we do what we've done for over 200 years of this country and
   wait until there's an actual dispute between the president and a
   director that he or she ... wants to fire?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor
   asked.

.