A Democrat who was fired from the Federal Trade Commission by President Trump was reinstated to her position yesterday in an appeals court ruling.

Trump's firing of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter violated Supreme Court precedent, said yesterday's ruling from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. A District Court judge ruled the same way in July, but Slaughter couldn't get back to work because of an administrative stay that delayed the lower-court ruling from taking effect.

The administrative stay was dissolved in yesterday's appeals court ruling, in which a three-judge panel also ruled 2–1 to deny the US government's motion for a longer-term stay pending appeal. "The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent," the panel majority said.

The panel pointed to a 1935 case, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Trump's termination notices sent to Slaughter and Democrat Alvaro Bedoya said, "Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's priorities. Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution."

In yesterday's ruling, the panel said:

Specifically, ninety years ago, a unanimous Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Trade Commission Act's for-cause removal protection for Federal Trade Commissioners. Over the ensuing decades—and fully informed of the substantial executive power exercised by the Commission—the Supreme Court has repeatedly and expressly left Humphrey's Executor in place, and so precluded Presidents from removing Commissioners at will. Then just four months ago, the Supreme Court stated that adherence to extant precedent like Humphrey's Executor controls in resolving stay motions. To grant a stay would be to defy the Supreme Court's decisions that bind our judgments. That we will not do.

Back to work, FTC Democrat says

The Slaughter case could end up at the Supreme Court. For now, Slaughter wrote that she would be getting back to work this morning.

"Amid the efforts by the Trump admin to illegally abolish independent agencies, incl[uding] the Federal Reserve, I'm glad the court has recognized that he is not above the law," Slaughter wrote last night after the ruling was issued. "I'm eager to get back first thing tomorrow to the work I was entrusted to do on behalf of the American people."

Trump fired Slaughter along with Bedoya in March, leaving the FTC with only Republican commissioners. They both sued the president, but Bedoya subsequently resigned from the FTC to look for other employment. Bedoya's claims were dismissed as moot in July.

The majority in yesterday's 2–1 panel ruling consisted of Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard, both Obama appointees. A dissent was filed by Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee.

"I would grant the government's motion for a stay because the government is likely to prevail on the merits of its challenge, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that when a court orders reinstatement of an officer removed by the President, the balance of harms favors the government and warrants a stay," Rao wrote.

Rao said she believes "that Humphrey's Executor should be overruled because it is inconsistent with the Constitution's vesting of all executive power in the President and with more recent Supreme Court decisions." She acknowledged "that only the Supreme Court may overrule its precedents" but argued that staying the district court injunction "does not require this court to claim that Humphrey's Executor has been overruled. Instead, the stay is warranted by the Supreme Court's decisions to stay injunctions ordering the reinstatement of removed officers."

Independent agencies and executive power

Although the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling was specifically about the FTC, the Trump administration argues that it shouldn't apply to the current version of the FTC because it exercises significant executive power. Rao agrees with that reasoning.

"While leaving Humphrey's Executor in place, the Supreme Court has explicitly recognized that the 'conclusion that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time,'" Rao wrote. "The Constitution establishes three departments of the federal government, and the so-called independent agencies are necessarily part of the Executive Branch, not some headless fourth branch. Commissioners of the FTC exercise 'considerable executive power,' and such officers are not entitled to reinstatement while they litigate the lawfulness of their removal."

The Supreme Court previously stayed District Court decisions in cases involving Trump's removal of Democrats from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In those stay rulings, "the Supreme Court has withheld judgment on the lawfulness of the President's removals of so-called independent agency heads, focusing instead on the harm to the government from reinstatement," Rao wrote. "That reasoning similarly requires a stay here while the merits of the removal, and the ongoing validity of Humphrey's Executor, continue to be litigated."

The majority disagreed with Rao on how to interpret the Supreme Court's recent decisions. Millett and Pillard said that in the National Labor Relations Board case, the stay order included an "admonition that removal protections already upheld by the Supreme Court remain in full effect unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise." Lower courts should "stay in their lane and leave to the Supreme Court 'the prerogative of overruling its own decisions,'" they wrote.

The majority also concluded that the FTC's powers have not changed since the 1935 ruling. "As the district court well explained, the present-day Commission exercises the same powers that the Court understood it to have in 1935 when Humphrey's Executor was decided," the judges found.

Read full article

Comments

Florida is planning to end all vaccination requirements in the state, including requirements for school children to get routine childhood vaccinations that protect them and their communities from severe and life-threatening diseases, such as Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib), pertussis (whooping cough), diphtheria, measles, tetanus, RSV, and polio.

Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo made the announcement at a press conference on Wednesday alongside Governor Ron DeSantis.

"What I'm most excited about is an announcement that we're making now, which is that the Florida Department of Health, in partnership with the governor, is going to be working to end all vaccine mandates in Florida law—all of them, all of them, all of them, every last one of them," Ladapo said. "Every last one of them is wrong and drips with disdain and slavery."

Ladapo, who has a history of being anti-vaccine and spreading misinformation, went on to argue against the public aspect of public health, saying that there is "no ethical basis" for requiring vaccination to, in part, protect the most vulnerable from infectious diseases. That vulnerable people, such as newborns and the immunocompromised, may be unnecessarily exposed to vaccine-preventable, life-threatening diseases is just "part of the experience of life," Ladapo claimed. He also called mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, which saved millions of lives at the height of the pandemic, "poison."

If Florida moves forward with the plans, the state will become the only state in the country to not have vaccination requirements for public school attendance, though many, including Florida, currently offer exemptions for non-medical reasons. Nationwide, non-medical exemptions are at an all-time high, and kindergarten vaccination rates have fallen to the range of 92 percent, below the 95 percent target needed to prevent community spread.

Later in the conference, DeSantis said that some of the rollback of vaccination requirements could be carried out by Ladapo directly, but that "the rest would require changes from the legislature."

The plans come as one of the most notorious anti-vaccine activists in the country, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is the top health official. Since becoming the secretary of health and human services, Kennedy has worked relentlessly to disparage vaccines, spread misinformation about them, and dismantle access and federal recommendations for them.

This year has also seen the largest measles outbreak since the highly infectious virus was declared eliminated from the country in 2000. The US case total for this year has reached a 33-year high, and two otherwise-healthy school-aged children died from the infection in Texas.

Read full article

Comments

The U.S. government site climate.gov offered years' worth of climate-science information — until its production team was fired earlier this summer. The site "is technically still online, but has been intentionally buried by the team of political appointees who now run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration," reports the Guardian. But now "a team of climate communication experts — including many members of the former climate.gov team — is working to resurrect its content into a new organization with an expanded mission." Their effort's new website, climate.us, would not only offer public-facing interpretations of climate science, but could also begin to directly offer climate-related services, such as assisting local governments with mapping increased flooding risk due to climate change. The effort is being led by climate.gov's former managing editor, Rebecca Lindsey, who, although now unemployed, has recruited several of her former colleagues to volunteer their time in an attempt to build climate.us into a thriving non-profit organization... "None of us were ready to let go of climate.gov and the mission...." Lindsey's new team has received a steady flow of outside support, including legal support, and a short-term grant that has helped them develop a vision for what they'd like to do next... As multiyear veterans of the federal bureaucracy, at times they've been surprised by the possibilities that the new effort might offer. "We're allowed to use TikTok now," said Lindsey. "We're allowed to have a little bit of fun... The climate.us team is also in the process of soft-launching a crowdsourced fundraising drive that Lindsey hopes they can leverage into more permanent support from a major foundation.... "[W]e do not yet have the sort of large operational funding that we will need if we're going to actually transition climate.gov operations to the non-profit space." In the meantime, Lindsey and her team have found themselves spending the summer knee-deep in the logistics of building a major non-profit from scratch.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

At the moment, the Spotify exodus of 2025 is a trickle rather than a flood, writes the Guardian, citing the departure of five notable bands "liked in indie circles," but not "the sorts to rack up billions of listens." "Still, it feels significant if only because, well, this sort of thing wasn't really supposed to happen any more." Plenty of bands and artists refused to play ball with Spotify in its early years, when the streamer still had work to do before achieving total ubiquity. But at some point there seemed to a collective recognition that resistance was futile, that Spotify had won and those bands would have to bend to its less-than-appealing model... This artist acquiescence happened in tandem — surely not coincidentally — with a closer relationship between Spotify and the record labels that once viewed it as their destroyer. Some of the bigger labels have found a way to make a lot of money from streaming: Spotify paid out $10bn in royalties last year — though many artists would point out that only a small fraction of that reaches them after their label takes its share... So why have those five bands departed in quick succession? The trigger was the announcement that Spotify founder Daniel Ek had led a €6oom fundraising push into a German defence company specialising in AI weapons technology. That was enough to prompt Deerhoof, the veteran San Francisco oddball noise pop band, to jump. "We don't want our music killing people," was how they bluntly explained their move on Instagram. That seems to have also been the animating factor for the rest of the departed, though GY!BE, who aren't on any social media platforms, removed their music from Spotify — and indeed all other platforms aside from Bandcamp — without issuing a statement, while Hotline TNT's statement seemed to frame it as one big element in a broader ideological schism. "The company that bills itself as the steward of all recorded music has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it does not align with the band's values in any way," the statement read. That speaks to a wider artist discontent in a company that has, even by its own standards, had a controversial couple of years. There was of course the publication of Liz Pelly's marmalade-dropper of a book Mood Machine, with its blow-by-blow explanation of why Spotify's model is so deleterious to musicians, including allegations that the streamer is filling its playlists with "ghost artists" to further push down the number of streams, and thus royalty payments, to real artists (Spotify denies this). The streamer continues to amend its model in ways that have caused frustration — demonetising artists with fewer than 1,000 streams, or by introducing a new bundling strategy resulting in lower royalty fees. Meanwhile, the company — along with other streamers — has struggled to police a steady flow of AI-generated tracks and artists on to the platform... [R]emoving yourself from such an important platform is highly risky. But if they can pull it off, the sacrifice might just be worth it. "A cooler world is possible," as Hotline TNT put it in their statement. The Guardian's culture editor adds that "I've been using Bandcamp more, even — gasp — buying albums..." "Maybe weaning ourselves off not just Spotify, but the way that Spotify has convinced us to consume music is the only answer. Then a cooler world might be possible."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention descended into turmoil this week after Health Secretary and zealous anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ousted the agency's director, Susan Monarez, who had just weeks ago been confirmed by the Senate and earned Kennedy's praise for her "unimpeachable scientific credentials."

It appears those scientific chops are what led to her swift downfall. Since the Department of Health and Human Services announced on X late Wednesday that "Susan Monarez is no longer director" of the CDC, media reports have revealed that her forced removal was over her refusal to bend to Kennedy's anti-vaccine, anti-science agenda.

The ouster appeared to be a breaking point for the agency overall, which has never fully recovered from the public pummeling it received at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. In its weakened position, the agency has since endured an onslaught of further criticism, vilification, and misinformation from Kennedy and the Trump administration, which also delivered brutal cuts, significantly slashing CDC's workforce, shuttering vital health programs, and hamstringing others. Earlier this month, a gunman, warped by vaccine misinformation, opened fire on the CDC's campus, riddling its buildings with hundreds of bullets, killing a local police officer, and traumatizing agency staff.

Monarez's expulsion represents the loss of a scientifically qualified leader who could have tried to shield the agency from some ideological attacks. As such, it quickly triggered a cascade of high-profile resignations at the CDC, a mass walkout of its staff, and outrage among lawmakers and health experts. While the fallout of the ouster is ongoing, what is immediately clear is that Kennedy is relentlessly advancing his war against lifesaving vaccines from within the CDC and is forcing his ideological agenda on CDC experts.

Some of those very CDC experts now warn that the CDC can no longer be trusted and the country is less safe.

Here's what we know so far about the CDC's downturn:

The ouster

Late Wednesday, The Washington Post reported that, for days prior to her ouster, Monarez had stood firm against Kennedy's demands that she, and by extension the CDC, blindly support and adopt vaccine restrictions put forward by the agency's vaccine advisory panel—a panel that Kennedy has utterly compromised. After firing all of its highly qualified, extensively vetted members in June, Kennedy hastily installed hand-selected allies on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), who are painfully unqualified but share Kennedy's hostility toward lifesaving shots. Already, Kennedy's panel has made recommendations that contradict scientific evidence and public health.

It is widely expected that they will further undo the agency's evidence-based vaccine recommendations, particularly for COVID-19 and childhood shots. Experts fear that such changes would undermine public confidence in both vaccines and federal guidance, and make vaccines more difficult, if not impossible, for Americans to obtain. Kennedy has already restricted access to COVID-19 vaccines, prompting medical associations to produce divergent recommendations, which raises a slew of unanswered questions about access to the vaccines.

Amid the standoff over rolling back vaccine policy, Kennedy urged Monarez to resign. She refused, and instead called key senators for help, including Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who cast a critical vote in favor of Kennedy's confirmation in exchange for concessions that Kennedy would not upend CDC's vaccine recommendations.

Cassidy then called Kennedy, which angered the anti-vaccine advocate, who then chastised Monarez. The beleaguered director was then presented with the choice to resign or be fired. She continued to refuse to resign. On Wednesday evening, HHS wrote of her termination on X. But Monarez, speaking through her lawyers, reiterated that she would not resign and had not been notified of her termination. Late Wednesday night, her lawyers confirmed that White House officials had sent notification of termination, but she still refused to vacate the role.

"As a presidential appointee, senate confirmed officer, only the president himself can fire her," her lawyers, Mark Zaid and Abbe Lowell said in a statement emailed to Ars Technica. "For this reason, we reject the notification Dr. Monarez has received as legally deficient and she remains as CDC Director. We have notified the White House Counsel of our position."

On Thursday, the Post reported that the White House had already named a replacement. Jim O’Neill, currently the deputy secretary of HHS, is to be the interim leader of the CDC. O’Neill was previously a Silicon Valley investor and entrepreneur who became a close ally of Peter Thiel. He also worked as a federal official in the George W. Bush administration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he was a frequent critic of the CDC, but at his Senate confirmation hearing in May, he called himself "very strongly pro-vaccine."

Kennedy, meanwhile, went on Fox News' Fox and Friends program Thursday and said the CDC is "in trouble" and that "we're fixing it. And it may be that some people should not be working there anymore."

Kennedy's ACIP is now scheduled to meet September 18–19 to discuss COVID-19 shots, among other vaccines.

Response at the CDC

Soon after news broke of Monarez's removal, three high-ranking CDC officials resigned together: Daniel Jernigan, director of the National Center for Emerging Zoonotic Infectious Diseases; Debra Houry, chief medical officer; and Demetre Daskalakis, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

Their resignation letters spoke to the dangers of Kennedy's anti-vaccine, anti-science agenda.

"For the good of the nation and the world, the science at CDC should never be censored or subject to political pauses or interpretations," Houry wrote in her resignation letter. "Vaccines save lives—this is an indisputable, well-established, scientific fact. ... It is, of course, important to question, analyze, and review research and surveillance, but this must be done by experts with the right skills and experience, without bias, and considering the full weight of scientific evidence. Recently, the overstating of risks and the rise of misinformation have cost lives, as demonstrated by the highest number of US measles cases in 30 years and the violent attack on our agency."

In his resignation letter, Daskalakis slammed Kennedy for his lack of transparency, communication, and interest in evidence-based policy. He accused the anti-vaccine advocate of using the CDC as "a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health." He also blasted ACIP's COVID work group members as having "dubious intent and more dubious scientific rigor."

"The intentional eroding of trust in low-risk vaccines favoring natural infection and unproven remedies will bring us to a pre-vaccine era where only the strong will survive and many if not all will suffer," Daskalakis wrote. "I believe in nutrition and exercise. I believe in making our food supply healthier, and I also believe in using vaccines to prevent death and disability. Eugenics plays prominently in the rhetoric being generated and is derivative of a legacy that good medicine and science should continue to shun."

In a conversation with The New York Times published Friday, Daskalakis revealed that Kennedy has never accepted a briefing from his center's experts and said the resignations should indicate that "there's something extremely wrong [at CDC].

"And also I think it's important for the American public to know that they really need to be cautious about the recommendations that they're hearing coming out of ACIP," he added.

As the three leaders were escorted out of the CDC on Thursday, the staff held a boisterous rally to show support for them and their agency. On his way out, Jernigan, who worked at CDC for more than 30 years, praised his colleagues.

"What makes us great at CDC is following the science, so let's get the politics out of public health," he said to cheers. "Let's get back to the objectivity and let the science lead us, because that's how we get to the best decisions for public health."

While those three resignations made news on Wednesday and Thursday, they are part of a steady stream of exits from the agency since Kennedy became secretary. Earlier on Wednesday, Politico reported that Jennifer Layden, director of the agency’s Office of Public Health Data, Surveillance, and Technology, had also resigned.

Response outside the CDC

Lawmakers have expressed concern and even outrage over Monarez's firing and what's going on at the CDC.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) quickly demanded a bipartisan investigation into Monarez's firing, calling Kennedy's actions "reckless" and "dangerous."

He went on to blast Kennedy's work as health secretary. "In just six months, Secretary Kennedy has completely upended the process for reviewing and recommending vaccines for the public," Sanders said. "He has unilaterally narrowed eligibility for COVID vaccines approved by the FDA, despite an ongoing surge in cases. He has spread misinformation about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines during the largest measles outbreak in over 30 years. He continues to spread misinformation about COVID vaccines. Now he is pushing out scientific leaders who refuse to act as a rubber stamp for his dangerous conspiracy theories and manipulate science."

Sanders called on Cassidy, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, to immediately convene a public hearing with Kennedy and Monarez.

Cassidy called for the upcoming ACIP meeting to be postponed.

"Serious allegations have been made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September ACIP meeting," Cassidy said in a statement. "These decisions directly impact children’s health and the meeting should not occur until significant oversight has been conducted. If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership."

Outside health organizations also expressed alarm about the situation at the CDC.

The American Medical Association said it was "deeply troubled" by the agency's turmoil and called Monarez's ouster and the other resignations "highly alarming at a challenging moment for public health."

In a joint press conference on Thursday of the Infectious Disease Society of America and the American Public Health Association, leaders for the groups spoke of the ripple effects in the public health community and the American public more broadly.

"When leadership decisions weaken the CDC, every American becomes more vulnerable to outbreaks, pandemics, and bioterror threats," Wendy Armstrong, vice president of the Infectious Disease Society of America said in the briefing. "We're speaking out because protecting public health is our responsibility as physicians and scientists. It's imperative that the White House and Congress take action to ensure a functioning CDC as the current HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy has failed."

Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, echoed the call, saying, "We've had enough."

Read full article

Comments

Every breath people take in their homes or car probably contains significant amounts of microplastics small enough to burrow deep into lungs, new peer-reviewed research finds, bringing into focus a little understood route of exposure and health threat. The Guardian: The study, published in the journal Plos One, estimates humans can inhale as much as 68,000 tiny plastic particles daily. Previous studies have identified larger pieces of airborne microplastics, but those are not as much of a health threat because they do not hang in the air as long, or move as deep into the pulmonary system. The smaller bits measure between 1 and 10 micrometers, or about one-seventh the thickness of a human hair, and present more of a health threat because they can more easily be distributed throughout the body. The findings "suggest that the health impacts of microplastic inhalation may be more substantial than we realize," the authors wrote.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.