The regulatory commission landscape in the United States is on the brink of noteworthy changes.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is reconsidering its long-standing role in defending the autonomy of key agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
This was made clear in a letter from Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris to Senator Richard Durbin dated February 12.
Shift in DOJ Policy
Historically, the DOJ has stood as a bulwark, providing legal protection to ensure that these regulatory bodies could not be dismissed by the president without valid justification.
However, Harris’s letter indicates a pivotal shift, suggesting that such protective measures may conflict with constitutional norms.
The DOJ intends to contest a nearly century-old Supreme Court ruling, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which affirmed Congress’s right to create independent agencies.
In her correspondence, Harris elaborated on the DOJ’s perspective that certain rules allowing for-cause removals of members from multi-member regulatory commissions could be unconstitutional.
As the DOJ moves forward, its position on the validity of these provisions is set to change, marking a new phase in how these agencies are overseen.
Political Context
This development follows a period of intense political maneuvering, notably under former President Donald Trump, who removed several Democratic officials from various regulatory agencies, including the NLRB and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Former NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox has since filed a lawsuit against Trump.
She contends that her dismissal violated the National Labor Relations Act, which mandates that board members can only be removed for specific reasons associated with neglect or misconduct.
Similarly, Charlotte Burrows, who previously served as the Chair of the EEOC, is pursuing legal action to challenge her removal from the commission, which occurred well before the end of her term.
Her legal representative has framed this situation as part of a larger trend of politically charged actions that threaten the integrity of federal agencies.
Implications for Regulatory Oversight
While these changes may bring about a degree of uncertainty, they also spark crucial discussions about the future of regulatory oversight in the U.S. This moment serves as a poignant reminder of the necessity to engage in ongoing conversations regarding the structure and functionality of our government, presenting an opportunity to reinforce a commitment to democratic ideals and effective governance.
Source: Hrdive