Two Contradictory Judicial Rulings: Crisis of Independent Agencies in ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi

Two new rulings announced by the Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Yüksek Mahkemesi reveal striking facts about who governs the country and how the law is applied differently to different people. It was ruled that individuals working within the presidential executive branch can be removed from their positions without showing any cause, even if they serve in independent agencies. For institutions with quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions, such as the Federal Ticaret Komisyonu, this situation means the complete elimination of "for-cause" provisions in employment contracts. However, there is one major exception to this rule. The Federal Rezerv, deliberately excluded from the scope of independent agencies, is exempt from this general rule.

The rulings in question were issued as a result of the Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook cases, which were announced to the public simultaneously on the same day. Both rulings were penned by Yüksek Mahkeme Başyargıcı John Roberts. The same justice signing two such contradictory decisions has become a subject of great astonishment and criticism in legal circles. According to critics, this absurd situation underscores the reality that the world is governed by money and financial powers. The special protection of the Federal Rezerv demonstrates that financial institutions possess a vastly different kind of immunity compared to other government departments.

With the Trump v. Slaughter case, the Yüksek Mahkemesi invalidated the historic 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, shelving a 91-year-old precedent. The 1935 decision firmly emphasized that Federal Ticaret Komisyonu commissioners could only be dismissed for valid reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. The new ruling, however, classified such "for-cause" dismissal requirements as a violation of the constitutional separation of powers principle. This radical change will fundamentally shake the structure of other independent federal agencies that enjoy similar protections to the FTC. Thus, the way has been paved for the president to have absolute and unchecked authority over almost all officials within the executive branch.

The practical consequences of these court rulings will be profoundly destructive and far-reaching. The functioning of independent agencies, historically established as five-member panels including at least two members from the opposition party, has now completely changed. Başkan Trump fired practically all Democratic members from these agencies and refused to appoint any Democratic candidates to fill these vacant positions in his second term. If presidents can arbitrarily remove any member within the executive branch, it will become nearly impossible for individuals with dissenting views to remain in government. This situation will lead to independent agencies becoming mere political tools and the collapse of the balancing mechanism derived from partisan differences.

A theoretical and defensible argument could be put forward that a president should have greater control over their subordinates. Even if it harms the institutional structures established by Congress, such authority could be deemed logical in the name of executive integrity. However, keeping the Federal Rezerv entirely outside this rule creates an unacceptable contradiction that invalidates all this legal logic. While one agency is supposed to be considered independent of political pressure, it is legally impossible to reconcile exempting another—one that determines financial policy—from the same rules that are disregarded for others. These two rulings will go down in history as an example of bias that exposes the hierarchy and institutional inequality within the American legal system.