Editorial written by New York Daily News Editorial Board.
Should the Trump administration’s promises to the Supreme Court that it will obey the orders of federal courts be believed when President Donald Trump is aspiring to the powers of a king or an emperor?
The administration’s first appeal to the high court is an emergency request for the justices to stay a D.C. trial judge’s ruling that Trump could not fire Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of the Special Counsel, which investigates whistleblower complaints within the federal government.
In her brief, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris insists that, thus far, the administration has fully complied with the federal courts’ wishes. Its attempt to designate Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins as acting special counsel was not an effort to contravene the lower court’s prohibition on recognizing a different special counsel because this was merely signaling who would take over if Dellinger was out (an inane argument).
Ultimately, Harris writes, the “Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts.” We think there might be a better audience for that argument: her own superiors, including Trump, Vice President JD Vance and pseudo-Prime Minister Elon Musk, who have spent the last couple of weeks openly musing about defying federal judges up to and including explicitly violating court orders.
Trump took the concept a step further by posting on his Truth Social sites a paraphrased quote commonly attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.” Trump also included an image of the French emperor. The message is clear that he is justified in his actions and need not observe the law. Next we expect he’ll be channeling Louis XIV’s declaration that “L’État, c’est moi”: “I am the state.” At least one judge has already found that the administration did defy his order on the reversal of the wide-ranging and sudden federal funding freeze.
The solicitor general is correct in stating that the case involves “an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers,” just not in the way that she thinks.
Contrary to what the president might posit, Congress’ power over executive branch officials extends beyond the Senate’s constitutionally-protected advice and consent duties. Our legislature mandated that the special counsel could be dismissed “only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” if not at the end of their term, and for good reason. This is an office designed specifically to hold the executive branch accountable from within, which is a function that loses all teeth if the president is able to simply remove the Senate-confirmed officeholder at will.
Trump’s insistence that he have full, direct and unabridged ability to appoint and remove officials at will flies in the face of long-standing precedent and power-sharing with Congress. This really is just the endpoint of a trend that began during Trump’s first term, when the president had a slew of unconfirmed cabinet-level officials in “acting” capacity for months or years, barely bothering to even try to get the Senate to sign off on them.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has chipped away at Congress’ power to impose common-sense limits on the president’s executive appointment power. It should take care to understand the consequences if it hands Trump more and more unabridged power.
