gloss · the reading room

Trump v. Slaughter · ¶176

There is no need for this renewed analysis, but even if we must return to fundamentals, the majority remains deeply wrong. Until 2010, this Court had generally allowed Congress to impose reasonable limits on the President’s default power to remove Executive Branch officials if doing so did not impair his ability to perform his constitutional duties. See Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 515–516, 532–533 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Recently, however, the Court has seized the issue from the political branches by fashioning a “general rule” of mandatory, illimitable at-will Presidential removal. Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 215. From the start, the majority’s theory rested on shaky ground. Over time, its arguments have grown weaker still, as historical evidence has undermined key pillars of its theory. Today, the Court faced a choice: plow ahead, or acknowledge that the foundations on which…
Read in context ›

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