united-states constitutional-law
Does Seila Law allow the U.S. president to fire anyone working in any U.S. agencies without cause?
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seila_Law_LLC_v._Consumer_Financial_Protection_Bureau</a></p>
<p>Does <em>Seila Law v. CFPB</em> allow the U.S. president to fire anyone working in any U.S. agencies without cause? I am wondering if there might be exceptions. The law targets specifically independent agencies, but does it include all independent agencies or some of them only. What are the criteria for determining if an agencies fall under the &quot;umbrella&quot; of the law? And are dependent agencies included, meaning all U.S. agencies?</p>

<p><a href="http://seilalawfirm.com/" rel="noreferrer">&quot;Seila Law&quot;</a> is a law firm, not a law. They were a party in a recent SCOTUS decision, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-7_n6io.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</a>, 591 U.S ___, which involved the Consumer  Financial  Protection  Bureau created by Congress, under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The court held that the structure of that law (regarding appoinntment and firing of the director) is unconstitutional:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The CFPB’s leadership by a single individual removable only for
inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of
powers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>More specifically,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Article II vests the entire “executive  Power”  in  the  President
alone, but the Constitution presumes that lesser executive officers
will assist the President in discharging his duties.  The President’s
executive  power  generally  includes  the  power  to  supervise —
and,  if  necessary, remove — those who exercise the President’s
authority on his behalf.    The  President’s  removal  power  has
long  been  confirmed  by  history  and  precedent.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The law in question addresses a single position, director of CFPB, not all government agencies. &quot;Agency&quot; is defined in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6" rel="noreferrer">18 USC 6</a> as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>includes any department, independent establishment, commission,
administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any
corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest,
unless the context shows that such term was intended to be used in a
more limited sense.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>&quot;Department&quot; is then defined as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>one of the executive departments enumerated in section 1 of Title 5,
unless the context shows that such term was intended to describe the
executive, legislative, or judicial branches of the government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>POTUS firing power is about the executive branch, not the judicial or legislative branches, so it depends on what you mean by &quot;agency&quot;. You can infer possible outcomes based on this ruling, but what they literally said is that particular law is unconstitutional.</p>
