"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."

"Trump, in a Move With Little Precedent, Says He Is Firing a Fed Governor. President Trump told Lisa Cook that he had found sufficient cause 'to remove you from your position.'"

"Ms. Cook and her lawyer said they would fight the firing."

The NYT headline for the top story this morning.

Little precedent. So there is some precedent.

In a letter posted to social media, Mr. Trump said the allegations of mortgage fraud undermined Ms. Cook.... The president claimed she could not perform as an effective financial regulator, as he invoked a power in the Fed’s founding statute that allows him to fire governors for cause.... 

The allegation against Cook is that she obtained a lower interest rate by claiming — in documents signed 2 weeks apart — that both a condominium in Atlanta and a house in Ann Arbor, Michigan were her primary residence. The NYT states that the allegations against Cook are part of "an emerging pattern of political retribution." The other bits of that "pattern" are allegations against Adam Schiff and Letitia James.

Perhaps the alleged wrongdoing is too personal and insufficiently related to her professional duties to constitute cause under the statute. Trump's letter asserts that he does not have "confidence in [her] integrity." He notes his obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and asserts that duty requires him to fire her immediately. She is challenging that exercise of power, as if the firing cannot be immediate and a court must double-check the President's finding.

The NYT article is full of material about the importance of the independence of the Federal Reserve.

"If I see anything I like, I'm allowed to take it...."

🚨 LMAO! President Trump confiscated a good-looking clock from Marco Rubio and the whole room is cracking up

Marco wanted to keep it 🤣

"If I see anything I like, I'm allowed to take it. I'm in Marco's office, I see this gorgeous clock...I said 'Marco...' he didn't know about… pic.twitter.com/INmNEZ2P3O

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 8, 2025

Hilarious. Especially bragging about it. And humiliating little Marco... who can't say a word and must duly chuckle.

And, by the way, it's an incredible clock.

"The Trump administration can move forward with plans to slash the federal work force and dismantle federal agencies, the Supreme Court announced on Tuesday...."

"The case represents a key test of the extent of President Trump’s power to reorganize the government without input from Congress. The justices’ order is technically only temporary.... But in practice, it means he is free to pursue his restructuring plans, even if judges later determine that they exceed presidential power. In a two-paragraph order, the justices wrote that they had concluded that “the government is likely to succeed on its argument” that President Trump’s executive order announcing plans to downsize the government was legal...."

The NYT reports.

Only Kentanji Brown Jackson dissented. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. She says:

"Her opinions, sometimes joined by no other justice, have been the subject of scornful criticism from the right and have raised questions about her relationships with her fellow justices, including the other two members of its liberal wing."

Writes Adam Liptak, in The New York Times, about Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Justice Barrett wrote, in an opinion [in Trump v. CASA] signed by all five of the other Republican appointees.

“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain,” Justice Barrett went on, referring to Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. “Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever.”...

I think Liptak is trying to build Jackson's reputation. He writes things like: "Justice Jackson has appeared comfortable expressing herself from the start." He compares her to Justice Breyer and Justice Brandeis:

“I was frightened to death for the first three years,” Justice Breyer said in a 2006 interview. Even Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a giant of the law who sat on the court from 1916 to 1939, needed time to find his footing. “So extraordinary an intellect as Brandeis said it took him four or five years to feel that he understood the jurisprudential problems of the court,” Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote of his friend and mentor. 

That does not work as a compliment to Jackson.

ADDED: The Washington Post just published a similar article, "One of the Supreme Court’s sharpest critics sits on it/Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emerges as a strong voice on an unusually fractious U.S. Supreme Court."

"Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency. I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations."

Said Joe Biden, quoted in "Trump Orders Investigation of Biden and His Aides/The executive order is the latest effort by President Trump to stoke outlandish conspiracy theories about his predecessor and question the legality of his actions in office" (NYT).

Is there video of Joe Biden saying that on his own, perhaps sitting with a serious journalist who is permitted to probe with questions about specific actions taken under his name?

Oh, no! I see we're told it was "a statement"! His denial that things were done by others using his name is another thing that might have been done by others using his name!

Does that make me a conspiracy theorist — an outlandish conspiracy theorist — in the eyes of the New York Times?

I'm suspicious of Biden's denial, but that doesn't mean I support the new President investigating the previous President. But that's what Biden did to Trump. Or was that really Biden? I understand Trump's motive of revenge, but I wish he'd concentrate on achieving great things, not raking over the wrongs of the past. And yet I rankle at the accusation that one is a conspiracy theorist — an outlandish conspiracy theorist! — to believe that there were these wrongs in the past. 

In an executive order, Mr. Trump put the power and resources of the federal government to work examining whether some of Mr. Biden’s presidential actions were legally invalid because his aides had enacted those policies without his knowledge. The executive order came after Mr. Trump shared a social media post over the weekend that claimed Mr. Biden had been “executed in 2020” and replaced by a robotic clone, following a pattern of suggestions by the president and his allies that Mr. Biden was a mentally incapacitated puppet of his aides....

Some outlandish things are not outlandish, and some outlandish things are humor. Should a President use humor? Not to confuse people, but he doesn't need to eschew humor for the sake of those who are willfully blind to humor. In this case, the "robotic clone" expresses a justified doubt that the entity called Joe Biden was making his own decisions and exercising the power entrusted to him by the people.

By the way, even if we assume Biden said those words quoted in the post title and let's even add the assumption that he said them in all sincerity, the question remains: How could he know what decisions were made during his presidency? He says he "made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations." Which ones? All of them? Sit him down for a serious interview with someone who will ask him about particular decisions and see if he recognizes them! This is the man who asserted that he "beat Medicare." 

"Under what theory of the constitution does a single marxist judge in San Francisco have the same executive power as the Commander-in-Chief elected by the whole nation to lead the executive branch?"

Tweet Stephen Miller, quoted by David French in "Trump Is Coming for Every Pillar of the State" (NYT). 

French continues:

As Miller put it in a press briefing last month, “The whole will of democracy is imbued into the elected president.” He is the only elected official who represents the whole of the American people, and he embodies the people’s general will....  

Trump and his team are furious at the federal judiciary, but they’re to blame for their own legal struggles. Trump has issued a host of poorly drafted executive orders. Trump’s administration has snatched people off the streets without adequate due process. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency is unilaterally wrecking agencies that were established by Congress, usurping Congress’s primacy in America’s constitutional structure.

It is not the judiciary’s fault that Trump has chosen to attack the constitutional order, and it is hardly the case that he’s losing only to liberal judges....

"President Trump wrote on social media on Sunday night that he no longer considered valid the pardons his predecessor granted to members of the bipartisan House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol..."

"... and a range of other people whom Mr. Trump sees as his political enemies, because they were signed using an autopen device.... But Mr. Trump’s assertion, which embraced a baseless right-wing conspiracy theory about former President Joseph R. Biden Jr., was a new escalation of his antidemocratic rhetoric. Implicit in his post was Mr. Trump’s belief that the nation’s laws should be whatever he decrees them to be. And it was a jolting reminder that his appetite for revenge has not been sated."

The NYT reports.

The NYT writer — Shawn McCreesh — observes "There is no power in the Constitution or case law to undo a pardon, and there is no exception to pardons signed by autopen," but to say that is to look past the question whether there  was a pardon. Even if a pardon can't be undone, how do we know it was ever done? We have a piece of writing, signed by autopen, and maybe it can be shown to have originated within the White House. The power that is in the Constitution is given to "The President," so, interpreting that clause, one might question whether his hand must do the signing... and whether his mind comprehended what he was doing.

But I can't believe courts would entertain challenges like that. It's the ultimate can of worms. Consider the parallel problem in the exercise of power within the judicial branch. We assume that the judicial opinions that emerge from the usual channels are signed/"signed" by the judges whose names appear on them and that the judges minds made the decisions that appear in the words of the text. We may well suspect that law clerks wrote the some of the opinions and even that some of the judges don't understand "their" own opinions. But we accept that they are what they purport to be. Beyond that lies chaos.

ADDED: Here is Trump's post on Truth Social:

"There's only so much he can do."

Remember when the left kept perpetuating the lie that “there's only so much Biden can do”about the border crisis? pic.twitter.com/HePFhZdLbL

— Lucy (@TheLucyShow1) March 6, 2025

To be fair, it's possible that the things Trump is doing to shut the border are things a court will one day tell him he actually can't do. For now, he's doing it anyway. Those who want to preserve their dignity after leaning hard into "There's only so much he can do" have a big stake in the litigation. We're still in the middle of things.

And here's the key line from Trump's March 4, 2025 address to Congress: "The media and our friends in the Democrat party kept saying we needed new legislation, we must have legislation to secure the border. But it turned out that all we really needed was a new President."

If the President wants to do something, he'll push the boundaries of power. If he doesn't, he'll see those boundaries where they justify his inaction. 

"President Trump has clipped the wings of Elon Musk by putting the cabinet in charge of federal firings after mounting complaints about the billionaire’s indiscriminate approach to cost-cutting."

"Trump told a meeting of his top team that it was time for the 'scalpel rather than the hatchet' after an outcry from voters, including in Republican districts, about the wave of sackings carried out by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). This is the first time Trump has acted to rein in the X and SpaceX entrepreneur, who has built a far-reaching power base at the president’s side — cemented by unrivalled access to his home and inner circle — prompting Democrat complaints of a plutocratic takeover of the US government."

From "Trump reins in Musk after Doge sacking spree upsets rivals and allies/The president is putting his cabinet in charge of federal firings after voters complain about Elon Musk’s cost-cutting layoffs" (London Times).

This is not the first time that the Trump administration has taken the position that Musk only gives advice and does not take the actions he's recommending. His lawyer argued it in court last week — blogged here.

But I'm glad to see Trump clarifying the lines of power. And, as I've said a few times, there needs to be more respect and empathy for the ordinary employees whose livelihood is threatened. I wrote this on February 23rd:

"There is a deep irony here. If there is an operating philosophy driving the Trump White House, it is that of the unitary executive..."

"... the idea that the president is the sole and exclusive wielder of a broad and expansive executive power. This includes the power to dismiss federal employees at will as well as the power to resist congressional statutes or judicial decisions that encroach on executive authority.... Trump may be working from an expansive theory of executive power, but in delegating so much of his authority to Musk... he is both undermining that power and demonstrating [Alexander] Hamilton’s real insights about the importance of a singular executive. Hamilton wrote that 'plurality in the executive' tends to 'conceal faults and destroy responsibility.'... Hamilton says that 'the multiplication of the executive adds to the difficulty of detection…. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author.' It is hard to imagine a better description of our current situation, in which the presence of what are essentially two presidents has blurred lines of accountability for 'pernicious measures.'... If and when disaster strikes, Musk can walk away. After all, he isn’t really the president. The buck will stop with Trump and the Republican Party, because if Musk cannot be held politically liable, they will be."

Writes Jamelle Bouie, in "The Bewildering Irony Behind the Trump-Musk Partnership" (NYT)(free-access link).

But Trump himself says "The buck stops here":

And isn't it rich — isn't it ironic — to hear Trump antagonists rail about concealment and lack of clear lines of responsibility when they did not seem to care much about the radical opacity of the "Biden" administration? We're supposed to worry now about the "multiplication of the executive" when you didn't worry about the absence of any true executive and nothing but a multiplicity of executive substitutes?

"The threat to democracy — indeed, the existential threat to democracy — is the unelected bureaucracy of lifetime, tenured civil servants..."

"... who believe they answer to no one, who believe they can do whatever they want without consequence, who believe they can set their own agenda no matter what Americans vote for. So, Americans vote for radical FBI reform, and FBI agents say they don’t want to change. Or Americans vote for radical reform in our energy policies, but EPA bureaucrats say they don’t want to change. Or Americans vote to end DEI — racist DEI policies, and lawyers in the Department of Justice say they don’t want to change. What President Trump is doing is he is removing federal bureaucrats who are defying democracy by failing to implement his lawful orders, which are the will of the whole American people."

Said Stephen Miller, at yesterday's press briefing.

Want to see a murder?

Libs in the White House press corps screamed at Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller that Elon Musk is “unelected!”

What happens next is a fatality.

I promise you - this is the single best video on the internet today:pic.twitter.com/Nxcw0qTtj1

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 20, 2025

ADDED: In the same vein, here's Victor Davis Hanson:

 

The President as King.

A cartoon from 1832:

 

AND: There's also this, from 1904:

I was reading Trump's social media posting — "'Congestion pricing is dead. Manhattan, and all of New York, is saved. Long Live The King!"

"CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!"
–President Donald J. Trump pic.twitter.com/IMr4tq0sMB

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 19, 2025

That's it. Remembering the movie title, "King of New York," and sensing that there was a cultural reference out of my reach, I asked Grok, "What does 'King of New York' refer to?"

"King of New York" can refer to different things depending on the context. Here are the most common meanings: 

1. Cultural/Historical Figure: Historically, it might evoke someone like Alexander Hamilton or other influential New Yorkers who shaped the city or state, though no one is officially titled "King of New York." It’s more of a colloquial or symbolic label for someone who dominates or represents New York’s identity. 

2. Hip-Hop Culture: In rap and hip-hop, "King of New York" is a fiercely debated title among artists claiming dominance in the New York rap scene. Notorious B.I.G. famously used it, especially tied to his track "Juicy" and his Brooklyn roots. Others like Nas, Jay-Z, and even 50 Cent have been in the conversation, with fans and critics arguing over who truly holds the crown based on influence, lyricism, or commercial success. 

3. Film: It’s the title of a 1990 crime movie directed by Abel Ferrara, starring Christopher Walken as Frank White, a drug lord who returns from prison aiming to reclaim power in New York City. The film’s a gritty take on power and redemption, and its title ties into the idea of ruling the city’s underworld. 

4. Sports: Occasionally, athletes like Derek Jeter (for his Yankees legacy) or Patrick Ewing (with the Knicks) get dubbed "King of New York" by fans or media for their outsized impact on the city’s sports culture. 

5. Slang/Bravado: More broadly, it’s a flex—someone calling themselves or being called the "King of New York" is asserting they’re the top dog in whatever field or scene they’re in, from business to street cred. 

Which one are you thinking of, or did you have a specific context in mind?

At that point I revealed my interest in the Trump tweet.

"In our constitutional system, the executive power belongs to the president, and that power generally includes the ability to supervise and remove the agents who wield executive power in his stead."

"While we have previously upheld limits on the president's removal authority in certain contexts, we decline to do so when it comes to principal officers who, acting alone, wield significant executive power."

Wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, 5 years ago, quoted in "Trump's firings of independent agency heads put 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent in crosshairs" (CBS News).

In what is likely to be the Trump administration's first Supreme Court emergency appeal of his second term, the solicitor general is expected to ask the high court to permit Dellinger's firing, according to documents obtained Sunday.

Dellinger = Hampton Dellinger, "who oversees the office that investigates whistleblower complaints"

The 90-year-old case =  Humphrey's Executor. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, called Humphrey's Executor "a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people," and said he "would repudiate what is left of this erroneous precedent."

(It's Humphrey's Executor because the man, who was fired by FDR, had died, and the family was suing for back pay.)

"In short, change needs to happen through the established channels of litigation in, and obedience to, the courts."

That's a vision of judicial supremacy seen in the NYT Editorial Board's "Trump Dares the Courts to Stop Him" (which I think was originally titled, using yesterday's phrase du jour, "Trump's Constitutional Crisis").

Did I rip that sentence out of context? Yes, but I gave you a gift link, so you can put it back.

The role of the judiciary is not to determine the meaning of every provision of law that is opined upon by someone in another branch of government, but only to say what the law is when that is needed to resolve a real dispute between adverse parties and only if the court has jurisdiction. The President is independently obliged to follow the law and must figure out what it is as he goes along. The courts don't answer questions of law as they happen to arise as the President does his work. This is basic separation of powers.

I note that the judge in the "Fork in the Road" case just found that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dissolved the temporary restraining order. He gave no advice on the legality of Trump's "fork" offer, because he lacked the power to do so. 

As the NYT tells us — in "Trump’s Federal Resignation Program Moves Ahead After Court Win/With a judge’s assent, the Trump administration moved to take next steps in the program and close it to new entrants" — Trump has now closed the offer.

"Judges often invoke the separation of powers to limit their own authority, to put certain classes of executive action off-limits from judicial review, or..."

"... to shape and constrain the remedies they provide. That has been true for as long as we have had courts and judicial review.... As a matter of separation of powers, the courts may themselves decide that courts ought not to be the ones to decide a given issue.... To date, all the Trump administration’s responses in court have embodied appeals to these principles. In response to a recent temporary restraining order that seemingly barred all political appointees at the Treasury Department from access to certain internal information, the administration argued in a filing that the work of executive agencies is overseen by the president, and 'a federal court, consistent with the separation of powers, cannot insulate any portion of this work from the specter of political accountability.' That was a straightforward legal appeal to the limits of judicial authority, made within a judicial proceeding as an argument under applicable law. Even where courts have jurisdiction to decide, it is always legally valid to argue that their decisions ought to respect the separation of powers...."

Writes lawprof Adrian Vermeule, in "JD Vance’s Tweet Is No Crisis/Judges also have an obligation to respect the separation of powers. Usually they do so" (Wall Street Journal, no paywall).

Everyone's saying it, so it must (not) be true: "Constitutional Crisis."

Their authenticity is overwhelming
pic.twitter.com/3qoTwyjbmv

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2025