Part 6 of the series Judicial Round Up – Corralling Cases That Affect Schools
John M. Sedor (Member, Clendaniel Heyman Campion)
This year our theme is Judicial Roundup! We are looking at cases that impact school districts. But, before we jump into legal doctrine, I thought you should know that after 20+ years of “Sedor, Wendlandt, Evans & Filippi”:
We changed our name!
That’s right! our name is now Clendaniel Heyman Campion (CHC). Same firm/new name. CHC remains committed to providing high quality, cost-effective legal services delivered with common sense. Our motto “we take the law seriously, not ourselves” and our commitment to being a bit non-traditional and mixing it up will not change. Just check out our new website for confirmation of that.
This month we will consider the nature of government. School Districts (and, in fact, all of us) live in a nation that is permeated with administrative agencies and their rules and regulations. This is sometimes referred to as the “administrative state.” It wasn’t always this way. But as life became more complex and the industrial revolution required increasing expertise and oversight, administrative agencies were formed. During the New Deal (1930’s and 1940’s), administrative agencies proliferated.
One legal critique of these agencies is whether and to what extent they are “checked” or responsive to a Constitutionally elected branch of government (Congress or the President). This is especially so where administrative agencies or commissions are independent which allows them to do what they think best – even if neither the Congress nor President agree. An agency or commission is “independent” when its members cannot be replaced at will by an elected branch of government.
This month we consider a story about how President Franklin D. Roosevelt viewed agencies and commissions and how what he did almost 100 years ago is relevant today.
Almost 100 years ago, in 1931, President Herbert Hoover appointed William Humphrey to a 7-year term on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Because the term of service on the FTC is set regardless of which party won the election, the FTC is an “independent commission.” In 1933, Franklin Roosevelt was elected President. About 4 months later, President Roosevelt asked Mr. Humphrey to resign from the FTC. In his letter to Mr. Humphrey, President Roosevelt said “the aims and purposes of the Administration with respect to the work of the [FTC] can be carried out most effectively with personnel of my own selection.” President Roosevelt wanted to appoint someone loyal to him. He believed he had the power to remove at will any person who was part of the executive function of government.
Mr. Humphrey thought about it and then said … “no.” So – President Roosevelt fired him. Mr. Humphrey objected to the firing but, a few months later, passed away. Humphrey’s Executor (thus, the name of the case), believing he had been wrongly fired, brought a claim against the United States for back pay.
In a 1935 decision, the Supreme Court held in favor of Humphrey’s Executor, finding that the estate was entitled to backpay. In so doing, it disagreed with President Roosevelt. In doing so, the Court held that, under our Constitution, Congress could create an independent commission and limit the President’s power to unilaterally remove a properly appointed member of that commission. The Supreme Court, thus, endorsed an independent administrative state.
Critics say that these boards and commissions have become a branch or part of our national government which is not elected and is substantially free of congressional and presidential oversight. The independence of these commissions makes them less responsive to the electoral process and, therefore, slows down the President’s or Congress’ ability to implement policy..
“They” say that the more things change, the more they stay the same …
In 2025, the President of the United States, like President Roosevelt, decided he wanted someone on the FTC who was loyal to him and supportive of his policies. So, with much more social media attention than in 1933, he fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. Ms. Slaughter sued to keep her job. She based her claim on the 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor case.
Ms. Slaughter was, no doubt, surprised when the Supreme Court issued an emergency interim order allowing her termination to stand while the case came before the Court on appeal. The case (Trump v. Slaughter) is now before the Supreme Court. It was argued before the Court on December 8, 2025. A decision is expected sometime between now and June.
The Court has indicated that it will decide whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled. Many Court watchers think it will be overruled based on the “unitary executive” theory. The “unitary executive” theory is a constitutional doctrine that Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests all executive power solely in the President. This means, in part, that executive power cannot be vested in independent commissions. If adopted, this would undermine Congress’ ability to create “independent” agencies and commissions.
If Humphrey’s Executor is overruled, federal independent commissions might become less stable and independent as administrations change. This could impact the consistency of the applicable rules and how those rules are applied to cases. Providing a president with more control over a commission or board allows the president to more quickly implement the president’s policy choices but it also means these commissions or boards would necessarily become less independent
Neither Humphrey’s Executor nor Trump v. Slaughter have exciting facts. But dull facts do not mean unimportant. These cases are key to the structural foundation of our current federal government. Their impact on how our government looks and works is significant.
This includes school districts. Your school district and your policy manuals are impacted by underlying rules from many independent federal commissions and boards including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Increased direct presidential control of these boards and commissions will allow for quicker policy implementation. This means more (and more significant) pendulum swings in the rules and policies issued by these administrative bodies. Such changes could impact policies, staffing, and direction and could change as often as every 4 years. Alternatively, Congress could take back this legislative power granted to these independent commissions.
Every Commentary we like to provide Practice Pointers. This month, we can only suggest this: watch and wait for the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter to see if Humphrey’s Executor continues to live or whether the “administrative state” as we know it begins to crumble.
And if you have any questions about how these or other laws affect your district, give us, CHC, a call at the same number as last year: 907-677-3600.
