Trump v. Slaughter · ¶172

The majority’s only response is INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983), which held unconstitutional a 50-year-old procedure by which a single House of Congress could override an executive action. See ante, at 33. Chadha, however, is no model for today’s decision. For one thing, Chadha did not involve a practice that had been repeatedly approved by this Court for nearly a century. Moreover, Chadha rested on “[e]xplicit and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution” (specifically, Article I’s bicameralism and presentment requirements) in disapproving the challenged practice. 462 U. S., at 945. The majority here, by contrast, identifies no constitutional provision referencing or requiring an unfettered removal power. See infra, at 14–18. Instead, it rests heavily on structural inferences, legislative inaction, congressional debates, legal commentary, and private correspondence. See ante, at…

slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.