Trump v. Slaughter · ¶220

Yet the accountability prized by the majority is not an unalloyed good. From the start, Americans distrusted the “arbitrary authority” that could result from a broad removal power, citing the “baleful influence of the royal prerogative when officers h[e]ld their commission during the pleasure of the Crown.” Id., at 488 (Jackson). Story saw unchecked removal authority as carrying a “monarchical and arbitrary” danger, risking the “conver[sion of] all the officers of the country into the mere tools and creatures of the president.” 3 Story §1533, at 391. He also feared that unrestrained Presidential removal would “deter [those] of high and honourable minds from engaging in the public service.” Ibid. Webster, too, observed the “obvious” risk that such a power would breed “complaisance,” “indiscriminate support of executive measures,” “pliant subserviancy, and gross adulation” in place of…

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