Two of John Roberts’ Biggest Decisions This Term Directly Contradict Each Other
Observation:
The issue is not simply inconsistency. The Roberts Court appears to be making governance and policy decisions for the United States by deciding which agencies deserve insulation from presidential control and which do not. We are aware of no constitutional provision that ranks the Federal Reserve above other congressionally created agencies, or that makes monetary independence more constitutionally important than scientific independence. Are the NIH and NSF less important to the future of the United States than the Federal Reserve? That is a comparative policy judgment Congress is better positioned to make. When the Court makes that decision itself, it is not merely interpreting the Constitution. It is designing the administrative state according to its own priorities. Their jurisdiction is in law, not Science, not Finance
Lead Paragraph:
Two of the Supreme Court’s most important decisions this term contradict each other so brazenly that a future reader might assume they were issued decades apart by very different courts. But in fact, they were authored by the same man, Chief Justice John Roberts, and released at the exact same time. In Trump v. Slaughter, Roberts abolished independent agencies by a 6–3 vote, allowing President Donald Trump to fire their leaders for any reason. Then, in Trump v. Cook, the chief justice created an exception to this rule for the Federal Reserve by a 5–4 vote, prohibiting the president from removing without good cause. It is impossible to reconcile these two decisions as anything other than a partisan effort to hand Trump dictatorial control over the government without allowing him to drive the nation into a recession.