Deepak Gupta, founding principal at Gupta-Wessler LLP and a former senior counsel at the CFPB, discusses the implications of the unitary executive theory and its potential to grant unprecedented powers to the presidency. He explores the erosion of agency independence and the challenges faced by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the current administration. Gupta also addresses significant upcoming legal battles, particularly regarding the firing of a key NLRB chair and the risks of an 'imperial presidency' in today's political landscape.
The podcast explores the implications of the heightened unitary executive theory, posing risks of dismantling independent agencies and historical governance norms.
It highlights the historical significance of independent agencies created for specialized governance, now threatened by moves to centralize authority within the presidency.
The discussion underscores urgent legal battles surrounding landmark cases like Humphrey's Executor, which protect independent agencies from presidential control and remain under threat.
Deep dives
The Unitary Executive Theory and Its Implications
The podcast delves into the concept of the unitary executive theory, which posits that the president holds ultimate authority over the executive branch. Recent actions, including an executive order by the president that asserts this power, have raised concerns about its implications for independent agencies. Historically, independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, were designed to operate without direct presidential control, ensuring expertise in policy areas vital for governance. A maximalist interpretation of this theory threatens to dismantle over a century of administrative norms, potentially undermining the checks and balances intended to limit presidential power.
Independent Agencies and Their Historical Context
The discussion highlights the historical significance of independent agencies, noting that their creation was largely a response to the need for expert governance free from political influence. These agencies emerged notably during the New Deal era to address complex issues requiring specialized knowledge and impartiality, distinct from the whims of political tides. The design of independent agencies included safeguards against arbitrary dismissal, ensuring that appointees operate with a degree of stability and continuity in decision-making. This design concept is now at risk, as recent governmental actions attempt to re-centralize authority within the presidency.
Legal Precedents and the Challenges Ahead
A key case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, serves as a foundational precedent for the continued existence of independent agencies. This 1935 Supreme Court decision established the principle that Congress could create independent agencies insulated from presidential removal, given their quasi-legislative and adjudicative roles. However, recent trends from the conservative judicial movement show a concerted effort to undermine this precedent, revealing cracks in its long-standing legal protection. The current trajectory suggests that challenges to independent agency structures may soon reach the Supreme Court, putting Humphrey's Executor and other critical legal frameworks in jeopardy.
The CFPB and Its Ongoing Legal Battles
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) serves as a crucial focal point in discussions about regulatory authority and consumer protection. Established post-financial crisis, the CFPB was intended to consolidate consumer protection efforts and provide oversight with a degree of independence. However, recent attempts to dismantle the agency have led to legal battles, including the representation of fired employees and unions asserting violations of labor laws. The implications of undermining the CFPB not only affect consumer rights but also set a concerning precedent for how agencies meant to serve public interests are treated under executive power.
The Broader Implications for Executive Authority
The implications of this broad expansion of executive authority extend beyond individual agencies, impacting the wider governance structure in the United States. The discussion emphasizes the unsettling potential for future presidents to wield unchecked power, undermining the stability and roles of established regulatory bodies. This shift toward an imperial presidency raises critical concerns about accountability, as historical checks and balances are increasingly disregarded. As the landscape transforms, the legal community is tasked with protecting constitutional values and ensuring that the trajectory of governance does not devolve into chaos or authoritarianism.
President Donald J Trump’s administration has been invoking a conservative legal theory as justification for his claim to possess king-like presidential powers. This new supercharged version of the “unitary executive theory” may just be extreme enough to stick in the craw of some conservative judges, but will it find a warm welcome when it inevitably lands at the Supreme Court, and should we brace for the overturning of 90 years of precedent in the form of Humphrey’s Executor? Dahlia Lithwick’s guest this week is Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and founding principal of Gupta Wessler LLP, who is now fighting for his former colleagues' jobs in court. Gupta is also representing Gwynne A Wilcox, the Chair of the National Labor Relations Board who was fired via late night email in a case that is likely headed to SCOTUS.
Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you’ll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen.
