Trump v. Slaughter · ¶186

In sum, nothing in the text of the Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding by those who ratified it, suggests the illimitable removal power the Court today endorses. The majority can shut its eyes to this evidence and point back to its past mistakes as support for the new ones of today. See ante, at 20 (citing Seila Law and Free Enter prise Fund). To the extent “‘[o]riginal history’” is seen as “generally dispositive,” however, see United States v. Rahimi, 602 U. S. 680, 738 (2024) (BARRETT, J., concurring), this background should have prevented the Court from continuing to build on the uncertain foundation of a general rule of illimitable Presidential removal.

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