Trump v. Slaughter · ¶183

The Constitution may have been intended, as the majority argues at length, to “forg[e] a new path,” in contrast to some state governments at the time, by “opting for one President” and not a “‘committee-style’” Presidency. See ante, at 1–2, 4–9. This new path, however, does not lead where the majority wishes to go. Whether executive power vests in a single President or a council, the question remains whether the Vesting Clause forecloses any limitations on that person’s (or body’s) power to remove subordinate officials. For proof, look no further than Hamilton, who certainly agreed that executive power ought to be “placed in a ‘single hand.’” Ante, at 6 (quoting The Federalist No. 70, p. 424 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961)). Yet Hamilton also saw this choice as entirely compatible with his view that “[t]he consent of ” the Senate would be necessary “to displace as well as to appoint” officers.…

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