WASHINGTON, DC, Sept. 14, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lacks constitutional authority to bring a claim for damages and injunctive relief against Walmart Inc., the New Civil Liberties Alliance argues in on friend of the court meager presented in the case FTC vs. Walmart, before the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As stated in the briefing, FTC faces a dilemma. First, Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States was wrongly decided in the 1930s, given the breadth of “executive power” conferred on the President, because FTC officials lack constitutional protections from his impeachment. But secondly, also under the holding of Humphreys, the commissioners cannot exercise executive powers, e.g. B. bring a lawsuit to court. Remarkably, the district court should then dismiss at the same time Humphreys and follow him.

After an investigation into third-party abuse of Walmart’s money transfer services, FTC believed that Walmart had violated several laws and that a lawsuit against the company was necessary to obtain fines and an injunction against future violations. However, when the Justice Department denied FTC’s recommendation to institute a lawsuit, FTC decided to act on its own. It can’t. FTC officers cannot be removed at will by the President, so they cannot exercise executive power. Initiating “litigation aimed at monetary or injunctive relief” employs the quintessence of executive power. The FTC initiated the lawsuit based on powers allegedly granted by laws enacted in the 1970s. The NCLA argues that the structure of the FTC precludes any extension of its authority. Therefore, their actions are unconstitutional and the 1970’s legislative amendments to the FTC’s capabilities must be repealed.

in the Humphrey’s enforcer, the Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act against a constitutional challenge, according to which commissioners could only be dismissed “for good cause”. When