"[T]he court overruled its 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States... [M]ore broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the 'unitary executive' theory..."

"... the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that 'the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.'..."

I'm reading "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner and overturns major restraint on presidential power" by Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog, writing about yesterday's Trump v. Slaughter.

"In a 36-page opinion... Roberts first emphasized that the Constitution gives the president '[t]he executive Power,' as well as the responsibility to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' The Framers of the Constitution, Roberts explained, wanted to create a system in which the one person, the president, was in charge of the executive branch. The officials who work for him, Roberts continued, are there to help him, but the president must be able to fire them if they are not performing well – so that he can carry out his own job.

Waiting on the Supreme Court.

Following the live chat at SCOTUSblog: "The cases still to be decided: birthright citizenship; the president’s power to fire the heads of independent agencies; the transgender athletes cases; two election law disputes; and whether a geofence warrant violated the 4th Amendment."

The full text of new opinions will be available here, at the Court's website.

ADDED: We have Watson v. RNC:  "The federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days thereafter; nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by election day." That's written by Justice Barrett and joined by the Chief and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Dissenting are Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

Next is Chatrie v. United States: "Police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Justice Kagan writes the majority opinion, joined by the Chief and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justice Gorsuch writes a concurring opinion, and Justice Alito has a dissent joined by Thomas and Barrett. From the Kagan opinion:

Consider just a few trips that a person is apt to think “indisputably private”: to “the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, [or] the by-the-hour motel.” And unlike a GPS device, Location History enables police officers to focus on precisely those sites—to see, in a given time block, who shows up. Similarly, Location History—even two hours of it—allows officers to target one-off events of potential interest: a gun show, say, or a political rally....

From the Gorsuch concurrence:

I might have hoped that the Court would have pursued a more traditional approach to the Fourth Amendment today. But look carefully and you will see hints of it at work even in the Court’s opinion. Why is the Court so protective of Location History data, email, and electronically stored photos and calendars? Because, it turns out, “a user reasonably understands” all those things “as his own.” Put another way, they are his effects. And why does the Court hold Mr. Chatrie’s effects protected by the Fourth Amendment even though a third party stores them? Because, the Court says, those effects remain his “even though [they are] stored on Google’s servers.” Put another way, entrusting your effects to a third party for certain agreed purposes doesn’t mean they are no longer yours....

Now, we get the last opinions of the day, Cook and Slaughter, the cases about the President's power to fire heads of independent agencies. David Lat at SCOTUSblog: "In terms of their bottom lines at least, Slaughter and Cook came out as many expected. 'The Fed is different' carried the day."

"Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey."

Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Trump’s Kennedy Center plans were blocked by a judge. What happens next?/The ruling has thrown the Washington institution’s immediate future into a state of uncertainty" (WaPo)(gift link).

IN THE COMMENTS: Fred Drinkwater said: "The name change was a deliberate 'last straw' intended to provoke this judicial response."

That really does make the most sense. It was insanely hamhanded. I'm going to assume he didn't want to fix this place, and the best — or most entertaining — way to avoid blame for letting it rot was to bait a judge into preventing him from saving it.

ADDED: There's a new piece up at WaPo now, "Trump’s name may come off the Kennedy Center. He could still destroy it. The Kennedy Center saga encapsulates all of the needless destruction of the Trump administration. The center’s troubles may not be over yet." That's by Philip Kennicott. Key insight: "The worst thing Trump could do right now is nothing, simply remain chair and let the center languish. He could decline to authorize budgets or renovations, leave the calendar empty or pocket plans for recovery. The center would be stuck in perpetual suspended animation.... His angry messages since the court ruling prove without a doubt what has been obvious all along: He never cared for the center, for the arts or culture...."

A Trump defender "could point to a prior president, maybe there was a Nixon thing here, maybe there was a Carter thing here, a Clinton thing here, a couple of Obama things here...."

"And they'll say, aha, here's this is analogous or this is analogous or this is analogous. And then they expand and extend and move way beyond that precedent. But then when challenged on it, they can go back and say, well, Clinton did X or Obama did Y. Now two things are true at once. Number one, Clinton often did X or Obama often did do Y.... That doesn't excuse Donald Trump at all. And it doesn't mean that... what Donald Trump is doing is the same level of wrongness. It can be more wrongness. But what he does tactically and what he tries to do legally, which often doesn't fly, but what often flies tactically, especially with his base, is he's constantly pulling from these prior examples that are scattered all throughout modern American history.... [I]f you're an administration that is pulling all of the wrongdoing from say five previous administrations, putting it under one administration and then amplifying all of it, then you do have an issue.... But guys, political fandom should be over, let's not do this, okay?"

Said David French in the new episode of "Advisory Opinions," "All the Things Wrong with Trump’s Billion-Dollar Fund."

The whole discussion there is very good, examining many legal issues and precedents. I'm just selecting that one thing, which is something I've observed again and again. It's not Trump's way to say it stops with me, I see what's wrong, and I'm going to set us straight and get back to what is soundly legal and in line with the intent of the Framers. That might seem to fit his slogan "Make American Great Again," but that's not what he does. He's in the middle of a big fight, and he's going tit for tat and beyond. He's one of those guys who say "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."

Of course, that's Obama's line — "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" — but he was paraphrasing the Sean Connery character in "The Untouchables":

: 

"Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way!"

"These proceedings improperly threaten an open-ended, freewheeling inquiry into executive branch decision-making on matters of national security..."

"... that implicate ongoing military and diplomatic initiatives. This judicial intrusion into the autonomy of a coequal department cannot be remedied by a later appeal from a contempt conviction."

Wrote Judge Neomi Rao, for the majority, quoted in "Appeals Court Ends Contempt Inquiry Into Deportation Flights/A federal judge’s nearly yearlong effort to investigate whether the Trump administration had violated his order had become a point of contention in the president’s battles with the courts" (NYT): 

Here's the opinion, from the District of Columbia court. The judge below was James E. Boasberg. 

"Therefore, I am going to sign an Order instructing the Secretary of Homeland Security, Markwayne Mullin, to immediately pay our TSA Agents..."

"... in order to address this Emergency Situation, and to quickly stop the Democrat Chaos at the Airports. It is not an easy thing to do, but I am going to do it! I want to thank our hardworking TSA Agents and also, ICE, for the incredible help they have given us at the Airports. I will not allow the Radical Left Democrats to hold our Country hostage any longer. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"

Trump writes, at Truth Social.

Question: How is he doing this? Answer: It's not easy! But he's going to do it. Perhaps he means: Go ahead and sue me and at least the workers willbe paid until the courts stop me... if they dare.

In other news from the edge of executive power: Trump is putting his signature on U.S. currency.

UPDATE: Trump gets results: "The Senate voted early Friday to fund the Department of Homeland Security except for its immigration enforcement and deportation operations.... The measure, which passed the Senate by a voice vote at around 2:20 a.m., does not include funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Border Patrol..." (NYT).

"'This is about as big as it gets,' President Trump said at the White House as a smiling Lee Zeldin, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, stood by. "

"'We are officially terminating the so-called "endangerment finding," a disastrous Obama-era policy,' he said. Mr. Trump called it a 'radical rule' that became 'the basis for the Green New Scam,' a label the president gives to any effort to curb emissions or develop renewable energy. Mr. Zeldin called it 'the single largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States.' He accused Democrats of having launched an 'ideological crusade' on climate change that 'strangled entire sectors of the United States economy,' particularly the auto industry...."

I'm reading "Trump Administration Erases the Government’s Power to Fight Climate Change/The Environmental Protection Agency repealed the bedrock scientific finding that greenhouse gases threaten human life and well being. It means the agency can no longer regulate them" (NYT).

"I’ll put my cards on the table," said Justice Gorsuch. "Maybe... there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government...."

In the oral argument this morning in Trump v. Slaughter, Justice Gorsuch questioned Amit Agarwal, counsel for Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the FTC commissioner fired by President Trump. This is the entire back-and-forth, centering on the idea of the President's duty to execute all the laws. All you lawyers can see where this is going: If the President has a duty, then he must have the power.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: You agree that [the President] has a duty to faithfully execute all the laws. 

MR. AGARWAL: Yes.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: Civil and criminal.

MR. AGARWAL: We agree that the Constitution imposes on the President a duty to faithfully execute the laws, absolutely.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: All the laws?

"This is one of the hottest benches I've seen in a while."

There's live-blogging of Trump v. Slaughter going on over at SCOTUSblog.

ADDED: I'm listening to the direct audio from the Court, which is here.

AND: At SCOTUSblog, Amy Howe observes that "a solid majority of the justices appeared to agree with the Trump administration that a law prohibiting the president from firing FTC commissioners except in cases of 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office' violates the constitutional separation of powers....  Much of the argument focused on the possible broader effects of a ruling for either the Trump administration or Slaughter. The justices questioned whether a decision in Slaughter’s favor could give Congress sweeping power, including the authority to convert existing Cabinet departments into multi-member agencies that would be insulated from presidential control.... In what was likely a bad sign for Slaughter, the justices spent virtually no time on the second question presented in the case – whether, even if the FTC removal statute is constitutional, a federal judge can order the reinstatement of an official who was fired without case, or whether that official is only entitled to back pay...."

Predictions elsewhere are similar: "Justices Seem Ready to Give Trump More Power to Fire Independent Government Officials" (NYT), "Supreme Court poised to expand Trump’s power over independent agencies" (WaPo).

Here's the transcript of the argument. Listening to the audio, I scrawled down one phrase I wanted to use to find the one quote I most wanted to blog. But I'm going to start a new post for that. The phrase was "cards on the table."

"As a young staff member in the Reagan administration, John G. Roberts Jr. was part of a group of lawyers who pushed for more White House control over independent government agencies."

"The 'time may be ripe to reconsider the existence of such entities, and take action to bring them back within the executive branch,' the future chief justice of the United States advised the White House counsel in a 1983 memo. Independent agencies, he wrote, were a 'Constitutional anomaly.' Once he ascended to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts joined other conservatives on the bench in a series of rulings that have chipped away at Congress’s power to constrain the president’s authority to fire independent regulators...."

From "Conservative Project at Supreme Court Meets Trump’s Push to Oust Officials/President Trump has repeatedly ousted leaders of independent agencies despite federal laws meant to shield those regulators from politics" (NYT).

The case — to be argued tomorrow — is Trump v. Slaughter.

The case to be overruled is Humphrey's Executor, discussed in this NYT article, "For Landmark Test of Executive Power, Echoes of a 1930s Supreme Court Battle/Franklin D. Roosevelt’s efforts to oust a Federal Trade Commission leader offer parallels to the current fight over President Trump’s actions" — showing various letters from FDR to Humphrey, saying things like "You will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission, and, frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence."

"President Donald Trump did not have the legal authority to cancel penny production unilaterally, as he has done."

"The task should have begun with Congress, not only for constitutional reasons, but for practical ones. Congressional deliberation would have facilitated solutions for the problems inherent in eliminating a coin that’s existed since 1793. Retailers want a new law that would allow them to round prices to the nearest nickel for cash transactions, which probably would have been included in penny legislation...."

Says the Editorial Board of The Washington Post, in "The penny is dead. Long live inflation. The U.S. has stopped making cents. Declining purchasing power will make us penniless."

What's so "practical" and "facilitated" about something that kept not happening? We'd have been waiting forever. At this point, the nickel needs to go too. Let Congress step up and end the nickel... and specify when and how to round. For now, we can all be glad that the beneficial and obvious step has been taken at long last. Trump haters can enjoy the additional pleasure of adding another item to the list of Unconstitutional Things Trump Has Done. 

"Life is not so easy. For anybody... I wanna reward the people who showed up without a lotta nonsense, without a lotta talk."

🚨 JUST IN: President Trump DOUBLES DOWN — promises to give $10,000 bonuses to Air Traffic Controllers who didn’t call out “sick” during the shutdown

Good. They deserve it.

“I’ll get [the money] from someplace.”

Don’t bet against 47. He’ll make it happen. pic.twitter.com/jo2ZbCBgGt

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) November 11, 2025

Where will Trump get the money to hand out $10,000 bonuses to air traffic controllers who showed up for work while the pay was not flowing?

"I don't know. I'll get it from someplace. I always get the money from someplace."

"As for the Government’s suggestion that the President is harmed by not being able to impose a uniform definition of sex across various regulatory schemes..."

"... that assertion is just another species of the far-fetched contention that the President must be injured whenever he is prevented from doing as he wishes.... The Government also fails to explain why it needs a uniform definition of sex, much less why such a uniform definition needs to be imposed now such that it cannot await the outcome of this litigation...."

Writes Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor — dissenting in Trump v. Orr, which granted a stay of a district court’s preliminary injunction against a new Executive Branch policy that required all new passports to show the individual's "biological sex" (AKA "sex assigned at birth").

"After hearing all of you talk about this, I'm even less sure of how this case will come out than I went in."

"I felt far more confident before I heard the oral arguments. I felt less confident, but still, you know, I was where I was going into this conversation and now I'm leaving, throwing my hands in the air. I do think, however, in that big picture part that when you think about Chevron doctrine... that the executive branch agencies are going to have less power to define their own scope of power.... And at the same time, I think they will give the President more power over his personnel that you don't want sort of complete vertical power in an executive branch that then also has a lot of horizontal power to get extra legislative power.... So, Mr. President, you have complete control of your executive branch and also we've taken away some of the powers of the executive branch — I think would be the best outcome of this term...."

Said Sarah Isgur at the end of the Advisory Opinions podcast yesterday, summing up after moderating a high-quality conversation about the oral argument in the tariffs case.

Listen to the live Supreme Court argument in the tariffs case.

 Here, now.

"It is especially amusing to hear progressives, the principal creators of the watery Caesarism of today’s presidency, sorrowfully describing Trump’s ballroom..."

"... as discordant with the White House’s proper modesty. They should worry less about the president’s residential immodesty and more about his anti-constitutional immodesty.

Writes George Will, in "The choreographed fakery of American politics: East Wing edition/Trump’s residential immodesty is nothing compared with his anti-constitutional immodesty" (WaPo).

I wondered if anyone had written "watery Caesarism" before. It sounds like a bad salad. A real salad, not a word salad. Don't put the dressing on until you're about to eat it. Anyway, "watery Caesarism" did turn up on a few old web pages, but — are you surprised? — they're all written by George Will!

1992: "Trouble is, most presidents are mediocre.

"Nearly half of U.S. presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act. Some (many) more than once."

"We’ve known about this problem for a long time. Plenty of people pointed it out in 2021 when Dems controlled WH+Congress. But nobody wants to give up power when their team has it."

Sarah Isgur explains the Insurrection Act in 4 quick points — I'm quoting #4 — after somebody on X calls attention to the time she trounced George Stephanopoulos on the topic:

I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the hair and makeup team at ABC as well as my hats, sunscreen, and dermatologist. https://t.co/ws0xo8TBOB

— Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) October 14, 2025

ADDED: Here's the full clip from "This Week," which aired last Sunday:

"The Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission despite a federal law..."

"... that is intended to restrict the White House’s power to control the agency.... Trump fired both Democratic commissioners on the five-person FTC in March, [Rebecca Kelly] Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Both challenged the move, although Bedoya later dropped out of the case. Slaughter is currently listed as a serving commissioner on the agency’s website, as the case has made its way through the courts. The firings are a direct challenge to a 1935 Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that upheld limits on the president’s ability to fire FTC commissioners without cause, a restriction Congress imposed to protect the agency from political pressure. Under the 1914 law that set up the agency, members can only be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'"

From "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner/Trump's actions are in direct tension with a 1935 ruling that upheld restrictions on the president's ability to remove FTC commissioners without cause" (NBC News).

"Slaughter is currently listed as a serving commissioner on the agency’s website" — not anymore. 

ADDED: The fact that NBC News referred to the fired commissioners as "Democratic commissioners" gives away the game. According to Humphrey's Executor, the idea was that "The commission is to be nonpartisan; and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality." And "It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law." 

Who even remembers to pretend that was supposed to be the idea these days?!

"'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,' President Barack Obama’s chief of staff said during the 2008 financial crash. 'It provides the opportunity to do things that were inconceivable before.'"

"The difference is that the mortgage crisis was a once-in-a-generation economic catastrophe. By describing so many things as an emergency today, Trump signals that he must take abnormal action to cope with an abnormal time. In a climate of emergency, it seems, anything is possible."

Writes Adam B. Kushner, in "For Donald Trump, Everything Is an Emergency/He’s exploiting a diabolical problem in our legal system to expand presidential power" (NYT)(free-access link).

"The difference is..." I can think of another difference.

"I have long thought that Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled because it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s vesting of all executive power in the President..."

"... and with more recent Supreme Court decisions. Of course, I agree with my colleagues that only the Supreme Court may overrule its precedents.... Granting a stay of the district court’s injunction, however, does not require this court to claim that Humphrey’s Executor has been overruled. Instead, the stay is warranted by the Supreme Court’s decisions to stay injunctions ordering the reinstatement of removed officers.... Everyone agrees that FTC commissioners are principal officers who exercise 'substantial executive power.'... The Constitution establishes three departments of the federal government, and the so-called independent agencies are necessarily part of the Executive Branch, not some headless fourth branch. Commissioners of the FTC exercise 'considerable executive power,' and such officers are not entitled to reinstatement while they litigate the lawfulness of their removal...."

Writes Judge Neomi Rao, dissenting, in Slaughter v. Trump. 

The NYT article about the case is "Federal Appeals Court Reinstates an F.T.C. Commissioner Fired by Trump/The court said the commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, had been illegally terminated 'without cause.'" Excerpt: "Since March, the F.T.C. has been led only by Republicans. Ms. Slaughter said in an interview Tuesday evening that she planned to go to the F.T.C. on Wednesday morning to work."

Here's the Wikipedia article on Humphrey's Executor. Excerpt: "The case involved William E. Humphrey, a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whom President Franklin D. Roosevelt had fired. Roosevelt had fired Humphrey over their policy disagreements involving economic regulation and the New Deal, even though the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 prohibited firing an FTC commissioner for any reason other than 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.'"

FDR wrote to Humphrey: "You will, I know, realize that I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission, and, frankly, I think it is best for the people of this country that I should have a full confidence."