Meg Duff
LightNews LightNews
banner
megduff.com
Meg Duff
@megduff.com
2.8K followers 890 following 77 posts
Reporter for Chemical Watch News & Insights. Also a freelance climate journalist. Views and Bluesky nonsense my own.
she/her
signal: megduff.11
www.megduff.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Meg Duff
mikesacks.bsky.social
CADC, 2-1, says Trump could illegally fire Wilcox and Harris.

Trump judges in majority say Humphrey’s doesn’t apply to NLRB or MSPB, and so don’t have to wait for SCOTUS to overrule it.

Biden judge in dissent says the ruling “paves the way to autocracy.”

media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...
Before: KATSAS, WALKER, and PAN, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge PAN. KATSAS, Circuit Judge: These appeals present the question whether Congress may constitutionally prohibit the President from removing members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board without cause. The district courts upheld the constitutionality of statutory removal protections for members of these boards. We reverse. Under Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), Congress may restrict the President's ability to remove principal officers who wield only quasi- legislative or quasi-judicial powers. But under Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), Congress may not restrict the President's ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power. As explained below, the NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey's Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. So, Congress cannot restrict the President's ability to remove NRB or MSPB members. PAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The public is well served when some parts of our government are insulated from the fray of politics. That is because certain government functions are, or should be, nonpartisan. For example, courts of law and other adjudicators that apply legal standards to facts must be impartial, and their impartiality is protected when the decision-makers do not fear losing their jobs when there is a change in presidential administrations. And some agencies that employ subject-matter expertise to address technical regulatory and policy issues, such as the Federal Reserve, are better able to execute their duties and to inspire public confidence in their decision-making if they are distanced from political considerations. Such "independent" government entities have existed in our country in some form since 1790.! And 138 years ago, Congress created the first nonpartisan expert independent agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). The Supreme Court confirmed that such agencies are constitutional ninety years ago.? Today, approximately thirty-three independent agencies apply specialized expertise to make merit-based decisions on behalf of the American people, in liverse areas like commerce, public safety, and energy. And numerous courts of law — such as the Tax Court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — serve as independent adjudicators, even though they are housed within the Executive Branch. See Christine Kexel Chabot, Is the Federal Reserve Constitutional? An Originalist Argument for Independent Agencies, 96 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1,39-40 (2020) (describing the Sinking Fund Commission of 1790, which had two members who were not removable by the President). 2 See Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). 3 See infra notes 14-20. The government urges an unprecedented interpretation of the Constitution that would lead to the full politicization of our government and a massive transfer of power to the President. My colleagues take an alternative approach in name only. Rather than expressly declaring Humphrey's a dead letter, they redefine Humphrey's "substantial executive power" exception such that it does not allow for any independent agencies. In so doing, they enable the government to achieve its goals while maintaining the appearance of judicial restraint. Under either approach, independent agencies as we know them cannot exist in this country. Because that outcome is not required by our Constitution and does harm to our nation, I respectfully dissent.
December 5, 2025 at 4:18 PM
Reposted by Meg Duff
revkin.bsky.social
Good Peter Baker article ⤴️ on Trump's brutish abuse of power in service of narrative. But words matter. When is a behavior an "echo" of something in the past, and when is it that thing incarnate?... 1/2
August 3, 2025 at 11:48 AM