Trump v. Slaughter · ¶214
Even in doing so, Myers managed to get a great many things wrong. Its expansive reading of Article II lacked any mooring in text or preratification history, conceding the lack of any “express provision respecting removals in the Constitution” or “discuss[ion] in the Constitutional Convention” and instead leaping to the Decision of 1789. 272 U. S., at 109–111. Further, “[m]ost contemporary scholars agree that Taft’s account of the Decision of 1789 is tendentious and historically inaccurate”; in Myers’s own time, moreover, “scholars and jurists attacked its historical arguments.” A. Katz & N. Rosenblum, Becoming the Administrator-in- Chief, 123 Colum. L. Rev. 2153, 2239, and nn. 642–643 (2023) (collecting sources). In addition, Myers’s claim that there was “no act of Congress . . . at variance” with its view of an illimitable removal power for the Nation’s first 74 years, see 272 U. S.,…Read in context ›
slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.