Should agencies be constitutionally independent from the executive?
Should Agencies be Constitutionally Independent from the Executive?
Overview
The question boils down to the balance of power between the branches of government. Administrative agencies are typically created by the legislature to carry out specific functions, often involving expertise or regulation. The degree of their independence from the executive branch varies by jurisdiction and by the nature of the agency.
Constitutional independence means that an agency operates free from direct control or oversight by the executive, usually to preserve impartiality and expertise, and prevent political interference. However, the executive branch (headed by the President or Prime Minister) traditionally has control over administration and enforcement of laws, so tension exists between political accountability and agency independence.
Arguments FOR constitutional independence:
Ensures impartial, expert decision-making.
Shields agencies from political pressures.
Protects fundamental rights where agencies have quasi-judicial powers.
Promotes stability and predictability in governance.
Arguments AGAINST constitutional independence:
Undermines democratic accountability.
Executive must ensure uniform policy and governance.
Agencies should implement political mandates from elected officials.
Key Cases and Doctrines on Agency Independence
1. Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: President Roosevelt removed a Federal Trade Commissioner (an independent agency official) for political reasons.
Holding: The Court ruled that Congress can create agencies with officers who are protected from removal by the President except for cause (e.g., inefficiency, neglect of duty).
Reasoning: The FTC was a quasi-legislative/quasi-judicial agency, not purely executive. Thus, the President cannot remove officers at will.
Significance: Established that some agencies can be constitutionally independent, with protection from arbitrary removal, ensuring independence from the executive.
2. Myers v. United States (1926)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: President Wilson removed a postmaster (a purely executive officer) without Senate approval.
Holding: The President has the exclusive power to remove purely executive officers.
Reasoning: Myers was a purely executive officer, and executive control requires full removal power.
Significance: Contrasted with Humphrey's Executor; here, purely executive agencies/officers are not constitutionally independent and must be removable at will by the executive.
3. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Challenged the structure of an independent agency (PCAOB) whose members could only be removed by the SEC for cause, and SEC commissioners themselves removable only for cause by the President.
Holding: The dual for-cause removal restrictions were unconstitutional because they limited the President's control too much.
Significance: Clarified limits on agency independence; agencies can have protections but not so much that executive oversight is effectively nullified.
4. Bowsher v. Synar (1986)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: Congress delegated certain powers to the Comptroller General, who could be removed only by Congress.
Holding: This was unconstitutional because the Comptroller General was performing executive functions but was removable only by Congress.
Reasoning: The Constitution vests executive power in the President; Congress cannot retain removal power over executive officers.
Significance: Reinforced that agencies/officers exercising executive functions must be under President's control.
5. Morrison v. Olson (1988)
U.S. Supreme Court
Facts: The case concerned the Independent Counsel statute, allowing removal only for cause by the Attorney General.
Holding: The statute did not violate the separation of powers.
Reasoning: The independent counsel was an "inferior officer" and limited protection from removal was constitutional to preserve independence in investigations.
Significance: Allowed some independent agencies/officers to have removal protections, balancing independence with executive control.
Summary Table of the Key Principles from These Cases
| Case | Holding on Independence | Agency Type/Function | Effect on Independence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humphrey's Executor | Agencies with quasi-legislative/judicial functions can be insulated from removal without cause | Independent Regulatory Agencies | Allowed constitutional independence |
| Myers | Purely executive officers are removable at will by President | Purely Executive Officers | No constitutional independence |
| Free Enterprise Fund | Too much protection limiting President's removal power is unconstitutional | Independent Agencies with multiple layers | Limits on independence |
| Bowsher | Congress cannot remove executive officers | Executive Officers | President must control executive officers |
| Morrison | Limited removal protections allowed for inferior officers | Independent Counsel | Partial independence allowed |
Conclusion
Agencies performing purely executive functions must remain under the control of the executive branch for constitutional reasons (Myers, Bowsher).
Agencies performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions can be insulated from removal by the executive to protect independence (Humphrey’s Executor).
There are limits to how insulated agencies can be; the President must retain some control to maintain separation of powers (Free Enterprise Fund).
Limited independence can be constitutional when it serves to preserve impartiality in specific functions like investigations (Morrison).
Thus, constitutional independence of agencies is not absolute but depends on the nature of their functions and the constitutional structure of separation of powers.
RELATED Blog
0 comments