Trump v. Slaughter · ¶249

Today’s decision may also have major implications for inferior officers and civil-service employees, which the majority studiously ignores. The Court’s precedents, to date, continue to support removal protections for such individuals. See, e.g., Perkins, 116 U. S., at 484–485 (holding, in 1886, that inferior officers appointed by a department head could be protected against at-will removal). Until today, however, Perkins and Humphrey’s were the “two exceptions to the President’s unrestricted removal power” this Court had recognized. Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 204. With one of those exceptions now wiped away, the majority’s silence on the other one provides cold comfort. Nor is there much in the majority’s logic that supports drawing a line at principal officers. Inferior officers (and likely many employees within the civil service) wield some executive power. Regardless of their rank, if…

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