Trump v. Slaughter · ¶185
Nor does the Take Care Clause serve as a plausible source for the expansive removal power the majority posits. Contra, ante, at 4. “[T]he provision—‘he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’—speaks of duty, not power.” Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 268 (opinion of KAGAN, J.) (quoting Art. II, §3). As recent scholarship has explained, “‘[f]aithful execution’ was proto-fiduciary legal language from centuries of English law that limited the discretion of executive officials” and did “not expan[d] their power.” J. Shugerman, The Misuse of Ratification-Era Sources by Unitary Executive Theorists, 58 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 591, 603–604 (2025); see A. Kent, E. Leib, & J. Shugerman, Faithful Execution and Article II, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 2111, 2120 (2019) (explaining that the original public meaning of the Take Care Clause “supports readings of Article II that tend to subordinate…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.