The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is now under scrutiny from a congressional probe led by Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who has accused the agency’s staff director, Mauro Albert Morales, of overstepping his authority by altering how members of the bipartisan State Advisory Committees (SACs) are appointed.
In a letter sent Wednesday, Roy, who chairs the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, criticized Morales for a recent rule change that gives him the power to appoint SAC members. Roy contended this move undermines the Commission’s long-standing practice of requiring a majority vote by the eight commissioners to approve such appointments.
“The Subcommittee understands that you have embraced this claim,” Roy wrote to Morales. “By endorsing and implementing this view, however, you have upended the Commission’s 65-year practice of approving SAC members by a majority vote of the Commissioners.”
The SACs, mandated by Congress, serve as advisory committees for each state, the District of Columbia, and the five U.S. territories. The Commission itself comprises eight members: four Democrats, three Republicans, and one independent.
Roy argued that Morales’ role as staff director does not grant him the authority to make appointments independently. “The staff director, however, is not the Commission’s agency head,” Roy stated in the letter. “The Commission’s ‘agency head’ is, properly understood, the eight members who comprise the Commission.”
Roy went on to accuse Morales of an “attempted usurpation of the Commission’s authority,” asserting that Morales’ position comes “only with administrative power, not any powers or duties vested in the Commission as a whole.”
The congressman has demanded transparency from Morales, giving him two weeks to produce documents and communications regarding the circumstances surrounding the rule change. “The attempted usurpation of the Commission’s authority to appoint SACs exceeds the authority granted to your position in statute,” Roy concluded.
This probe underscores rising tensions between congressional Republicans and federal agencies, with Roy framing the issue as a matter of constitutional governance. As the investigation unfolds, Morales and the Commission may face further scrutiny over the perceived expansion of administrative authority.
The outcome of this inquiry could have broader implications for the balance of power within the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and other federal bodies reliant on bipartisan oversight.