2026-06-29T22:53:44.589Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/john-roberts-1935-humphreys-executor-presidents-fire-anyone
自年轻时在里根政府担任律师以来的40多年间，美国首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨一直呼吁赋予美国总统极其强大的权力，使其能够随时解雇独立机构的负责人。
1983年，他在给白宫法律顾问的一份备忘录中称：“现在是重新审视独立机构这一宪法异常状况的适当时机。”
2005年他被任命为首席大法官后，便开始着手铺垫推翻最高法院先例的工作——此前的先例允许国会限制总统的解雇权。
“若无此项权力，”罗伯茨在2010年的一则案件中写道，“总统就无法为履行自身职责承担全部责任；责任将被推到其他地方。”
罗伯茨的努力在周一达到顶峰：他带领多数派法官推翻了1935年的“汉弗莱遗产执行人诉美国案”先例。该先例曾允许国会限制总统解雇机构负责人的权力，以确保这些负责人的独立性。坐在 elevated 法庭中央席位上的首席大法官指出，最高法院一直在逐步背离1935年的先例，他坚称该先例与宪法历史和结构相悖。
“如果‘汉弗莱案’还剩什么残余，我们就将其彻底推翻。”他宣布道。
与围绕第二修正案、堕胎和生育权、宗教及移民的最高法院之争相比，监管领域的争议看似枯燥乏味。但美国独立机构的工作却深刻影响着美国人生活的方方面面，无论好坏——它们在公共卫生与安全、消费者保护等领域为企业和个人设定要求，以期增进公共利益。
“我们的宪法设立了三个分支，但只有一位总统，”罗伯茨在长达36页的判决意见中进一步阐述了自己的立场，“这位总统并非无所不能——绝非如此。但他也并非无能为力。他，且只有他，被授予了‘美利坚合众国的行政权力’。”
罗伯茨对总统权力的激进主张多年来在多起案件中有所体现，最引人注目的当属2024年：这位首席大法官与保守派同僚认定特朗普享有刑事起诉豁免权，依据是总统拥有“最终且排他的”权力。
他长期以来旨在削弱联邦贸易委员会等独立机构权力的努力，与他逐步限制1965年《投票权法案》适用范围的举措如出一辙。后者的行动在本开庭期早些时候达到顶峰，最高法院削弱了对黑人和拉丁裔选民的联邦保护。
罗伯茨的战略耐心最终得到了回报。在这两起案件中，新增的志同道合的保守派大法官组成了6比3的超级多数派，为他提供了助力。
同样，三名自由派大法官再次只能提出异议。
周一，索尼娅·索托马约尔大法官代表左翼大法官发表了口头异议，强调让独立监管机构免受总统施压的重要性——总统可能会干预公平贸易监管，比如联邦贸易委员会监管的领域，同时还包括职场安全、核能和化学危害等监管机构负责的事务。
索托马约尔表示，国会长期以来一直依赖1935年的先例来建立可行的政府监管体系。
“（如今）最高法院赋予了总统连建国者们反抗的英国王室都未曾拥有的权力，”索托马约尔写道，“他将原本应忠执行法律的职责，转变为公然违抗这些法律的许可证，从而将他置于曾经平等的其他分支之上。”
设立联邦贸易委员会和其他独立机构的国会法案规定了专员的特定任期，且仅在存在“效率低下、玩忽职守或在职渎职”等“不当行为”时才可罢免。
特朗普连任第二届总统后，着手解雇多个机构中由民主党任命的专员，其中包括丽贝卡·斯劳特——她当时正在联邦贸易委员会七年任期的中途。该委员会成立于1914年，旨在保护消费者、防范不公平商业行为。
2025年3月，斯劳特收到特朗普的一封邮件，称她“继续在联邦贸易委员会任职与本届政府的优先事项不符”。
斯劳特试图保留职位，下级法院法官依据1935年的先例支持了她的诉求。特朗普政府提起上诉时，引用了罗伯茨过往判决中的表述，辩称是时候彻底推翻这项已存在90年的判决了。
特朗普政府官员、罗伯茨以及众多保守派同僚都认同“单一行政理论”，该理论认为总统有权管控庞大的官僚机构。
最高法院周一也为美联储留出了例外情况，罗伯茨在单独的“特朗普诉库克案”中表示，美联储的独立性基于美国长期以来拥有独立中央银行的传统。
斯劳特在法院作出裁决后的新闻发布会上谴责了这一判决以及针对美联储的例外规定。
“不知为何，华尔街享有特殊待遇，获得了特殊保护，但除此之外，那些为普通美国人发声的机构却没有，”斯劳特说。
去年12月的口头辩论以及多数派保守派的言论发表后，特朗普政府胜诉似乎已成定局。考虑到罗伯茨在这一法律领域的改革历史，他亲自撰写判决意见也在意料之中。
https://www.cnn.com/
周一在法庭上，罗伯茨首先解释道，美国建国者中詹姆斯·麦迪逊率先提出，所有行政权力都应授予总统，由其任命并监督执行国家法律的人员。
这位首席大法官将“汉弗莱遗产执行人案”描述为一个异类。该案的起因是富兰克林·D·罗斯福总统试图解雇其前任赫伯特·胡佛任命的联邦贸易委员会专员。最高法院一致裁定，总统若无国会授权，无权解雇该专员。
这一判决削弱了1926年“迈尔斯诉美国案”的裁决——后者允许总统无需国会同意即可罢免邮政局长。
从罗伯茨在政府任职以来，无论是为罗纳德·里根和乔治·H·W·布什两位总统效力，还是作为法官，他一直秉持着强有力的行政权力理念。他一直寻求回归他所称的“开创性”的“迈尔斯案”裁决。
周一，他提及了自己2010年和2020年的先前判决，这些判决解除了国会对总统罢免权的限制，并援引了1926年的“迈尔斯案”。
周一在法庭上，他指出“迈尔斯案”的判决由首席大法官威廉·霍华德·塔夫脱撰写——后者此前曾担任美国总统。罗伯茨回忆称，塔夫脱认为，行政权力授予总统本质上就是授予其执行法律的权力，其中包括罢免他无需承担责任和控制的官员的能力。
罗伯茨极力推崇1926年的这项裁决，而索托马约尔则对其加以贬损。
“如果‘迈尔斯案’是多数派立场的‘最佳’依据，那么其理论不过是建在沙地上的城堡。首先，正如多数派所承认的，‘迈尔斯案’并未涉及因故罢免的保护；受到质疑的法规反而要求参议院同意才能罢免。”
她最尖锐的批评针对罗伯茨与总统问责相关的推理。
经常批评特朗普总统的索托马约尔暗示，这项判决非但不会带来“问责”，反而会导致“不稳定”。
“我猜，”她抬头看着法庭上的旁听者说道，“……或许你们也该这么想。”
索托马约尔总结道：“总统获得了前所未有的权力。”
一如既往沉稳的罗伯茨似乎不为所动：为总统赋予更多权力——这正是他一直以来的目标。
John Roberts fought for decades to get rid of the 1935 precedent that had limited a president’s firing authority
2026-06-29T22:53:44.589Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/29/politics/john-roberts-1935-humphreys-executor-presidents-fire-anyone
For more than 40 years, since his service as a young Reagan administration lawyer, Chief Justice John Roberts has pressed for an exceptionally powerful US president, one who could fire the heads of independent agencies at any time.
In one memo to the White House counsel in 1983, Roberts asserted, “the time is ripe to reconsider the constitutional anomaly of independent agencies.”
When he was appointed chief justice in 2005, he began laying the groundwork to reverse Supreme Court precedent that permitted Congress to limit the president’s firing power.
“Without such power,” Roberts wrote in a 2010 case, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”
Roberts’ effort climaxed on Monday as he led a majority to reverse a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that had allowed Congress to restrict the president’s authority to fire agency heads to ensure their independence. From his seat at the center of the elevated bench, the chief justice observed that the court had been steadily backing away from the 1935 precedent, which he insisted conflicted with constitutional history and structure.
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” he declared.
Controversy over the regulatory sphere can seem dry, compared to Supreme Court battles centered on the Second Amendment, abortion and reproductive rights, religion, and immigration. But the work of US independent agencies cuts a swath across American life, for better or worse, imposing requirements on businesses and individuals in areas of public health and safety, consumer protection, with the goal of enhancing the common good.
“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” Roberts wrote, expanding on his position in his 36-page opinion. “That President is not all powerful – not by any means. But he is not impotent either. He and he alone is vested with ‘the executive Power’ of the United States.”
Roberts’ sweeping approach to presidential power has manifested itself in multiple cases over the years, perhaps most notably in 2024 when the chief justice and fellow conservatives gave Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution, pointing to the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority.
His long-game effort to curtail independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, at the center of the ruling Monday, is not unlike his successive moves curtailing the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That drive culminated earlier this term as the court rolled back federal protections for Black and Latino voters.
Roberts’ strategic patience paid off. In both, he was assisted by the additional appointments of likeminded conservative justices that created a 6-3 supermajority.
And in the same vein, the three liberal justices again were left only to dissent.
On Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered an oral dissent for the left-wing justices, emphasizing the importance of insulating independent regulators from the pressure of a president who may want to infringe on fair-trade regulations, such as overseen by the FTC, but also workplace safety, nuclear energy and chemical hazards that regulatory agencies manage.
Sotomayor said Congress had long relied on the 1935 precedent to set up a workable regulatory system of government.
“(T)he Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted,” Sotomayor wrote, “elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.”
Congressional legislation establishing the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies dictates certain terms in office for commissioners and permits removal only for some wrongdoing, defined as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
When Trump returned for his second term, he set out to remove Democratic-appointed commissioners at a number of agencies, including Rebecca Slaughter, who was in the middle of a seven-year term at the FTC. The commission was established in 1914 to protect consumers and safeguard against unfair business practices.
Slaughter received an email from Trump in March 2025 saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”
Lower court judges sided with Slaughter as she tried to claim her post, based on 1935 precedent. As the Trump administration appealed, it lifted phrases from Roberts’ past decisions to argue that it was time to fully reverse the nine-decade decision.
Trump officials, along with Roberts and many fellow conservatives, subscribe to a “unitary executive theory” of presidential control that gives him power over the vast bureaucracy.
The justices did carve out an exception on Monday for the Federal Reserve, which Roberts said in the separate case of Trump v. Cook is based on the country’s long tradition of an independent central bank.
Slaughter, at a news conference after the court action, decried the decision against her and the Fed exception.
“Somehow Wall Street is special and gets special treatment, but other than that, the agencies that look out for everyday Americans do not,” Slaughter said.
After oral arguments in her case last December, and remarks from conservatives who hold the majority, it seemed inevitable that the Trump administration would prevail. And given Roberts’ history in transforming this area of the law, it appeared he would write the opinion himself.
https://www.cnn.com/
In the courtroom Monday, Roberts began by explaining that James Madison took the lead among America’s founders in conceiving of all executive power vested in the president, to appoint and oversee those who carry out the nation’s laws.
The chief justice portrayed Humphrey’s Executor as an outlier. The case began when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire an appointee of his predecessor, President Herbert Hoover, to the Federal Trade Commission. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the president lacked the power unless authorized by Congress.
That decision undermined an earlier ruling, the 1926 Myers v. United States, that had allowed the president to remove postmasters from office without congressional consent.
For as long as Roberts has worked in government, first for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and then as a jurist, he has put forth a robust concept of executive power. He has sought a return to the “seminal,” as he called it, Myers ruling.
On Monday, he highlighted his prior decisions, in 2010 and 2020, that lifted Congress’ restrictions on the president’s removal power and relied on the 1926 Myers case.
From the bench on Monday, he noted the Myers decision had been written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had earlier been president of the United States. Taft believed, Roberts recounted, that the vesting of the executive power in the president was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws, which included the ability to remove officials over whom he lacks responsibility and control.
As Roberts inflated that 1926 ruling, Sotomayor diminished it.
“If Myers is the ‘best’ support for the majority’s position, its theory is a castle built on sand. For one thing, as the majority admits, Myers did not address for-cause removal protection; the challenged statute instead required Senate consent to removal.”
Her sharpest comments came as she scoffed at Roberts’ reasoning tied to presidential accountability.
Sotomayor, who has often criticized President Trump, suggested that rather that “accountability,” the decision would lead to “instability.”
“I’m going to guess,” she said, looking up from her page at courtroom spectators, “… maybe you should, too.”
Sotomayor concluded, “The president emerges with more power than ever before.”
Roberts, composed as ever, appeared unfazed: More power for the president – that has been precisely his aim.
