The Supreme Court's Assault on 20th Century Protections

Decoding the Supreme Court's Intentions

On December 9, 2025, the Supreme Court presented its oral arguments in one of the most consequential cases to date, Trump v. Slaughter. This case will determine whether Congress can mandate just cause for the president to remove heads of independent agencies. This is more than a legal nuance; it is a pivotal moment that threatens to unravel safeguards established across decades.

Led by Kate Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, the arguments have engaged legal scholars like Will Baude and Stephen Vladeck in a written online discussion about the potential fallout from this case. Their insights reveal not just the stakes involved but also the pervasive resonance of this case throughout our constitutional framework.

The Implications of Overturning Precedents

Most experts anticipate that the Court will favor the president's unfettered authority to dismiss heads of independent agencies, officially overturning precedents like Humphrey's Executor v. United States. This 1935 ruling highlighted the essential protections affording certain agency heads a buffer from arbitrary presidential discharge. As Professor Baude observed, the crux is not whether the Court will overturn this case, but rather how broadly they will do so.

The Risks of Unchecked Power

Justice Elena Kagan, during her questioning, raised a critical alarm about the perils that unrestrained presidential power over independent agencies might pose. If Congress has historically created these entities to remain beyond presidential whims, then undermining this structure risks concentrating monumental power in the executive branch. This concentration endangers the very principles of checks and balances that underpin our democracy.

Examining the Underlying Issues

• Severability Issues: The legality of isolating the 'for cause' provision for agency heads stands central in these discussions. Kagan's caution regarding this severance reflects a deeper concern: Without bipartisan protections, unchecked presidential control could lead to the erosion of agency credibility.

Perhaps shockingly, a total dismantling of such agencies may prove less concerning than allowing one man to hold sway over them.

Counterpoints from Constitutional Experts

Baude's analysis draws attention to the complexities of the “severability” doctrine, challenging what the Court may presume Congress would have intended had it known parts of its legislation would be considered unconstitutional. The implications are vast; they reveal a judicial system grappling with an administrative state that many citizens increasingly distrust.

Revisiting Democracy

The Court's current majority seems to dismiss Congress's democratic legitimacy, favoring a vision where the president is viewed as the embodiment of democracy itself. But is democratic accountability really inherent in such unilateralism? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, alongside others, emphasizes that Congress derives its power from the electorate far more frequently than the president does.

The Broader Landscape

As discussions evolve, the underlying questions regarding executive power extend beyond the scope of Trump v. Slaughter. They touch upon the very foundations of our Republic:

1. Will the Court embolden a broader executive control?
2. How will the governmental landscape morph in the wake of these decisions?

The atmosphere fosters unease, causing a rift between the embrace of executive power and the accountability mechanisms that should reign in that power.

A Call to Action

As we stand at this critical juncture, the implications of our highest court's decisions should not merely be debated in academic circles. Voter participation, legislative activism, and public discourse are essential now more than ever. We must engage the public, educate them on complexities, and advocate for potent checks against potential abrogations of our rights and governance structures.

Conclusion

The stakes could not be higher. The fallout from the Supreme Court's impending decisions will echo through our democracy for generations, as we collectively navigate a world that increasingly reflects the whims of an unchecked executive. It's time to challenge the prevailing authority and assert our rights, demanding leadership that genuinely represents the diverse voices that make up our nation.