Arguments happening right now. Just now listening in

Live Oral Argument Audio
From SCOTUSblog

Quote:

---

On Monday, Dec. 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a battle that has been brewing, on one hand, since soon after President Donald Trump took office in January and, on the other hand, for years. At the center of the battle are laws that limit the president's ability to fire the heads of independent, multi-member federal agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. The president and his supporters are proponents of a doctrine known as 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 at the center of this case that restrict his ability to do so violate the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government.

---

There are no independent agencies. Everything falls under one of three branches of government. Period.

Constitution 101

Government employees want tenure. This is my shocked face.

How can govt agencies operate independent of the chief executive of that same govt ?

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There are no independent agencies. Everything falls under one of three branches of government. Period.

Constitution 101

---

Exactly - and if the President doesn't have authority to fire them, then this sounds like a violation by Congress of them usurping executive authority...which itself should be illegal (but may require a separate court case?).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._United_States

Can somebody explain to me how this case is any different from the above? I appreciate the above decision because I support any cause going against that old communist FDR and his "New Deal" scam

Edit: Biggest difference from what I can tell is how powerful the FTC has become vs 1935. Its idiotic for the president to not be allowed to fire the same people they can appoint.

I assumed this was about Trump and Sargent Slaughter wrestling.

The issue is that this was/is broadly thought as ripe for being overturned. The proliferation of 'independent' agencies within the executive branch over the past 70 years has brought it to a head. Agarwal is not handling these questions real well either (not his fault, it's a stretch to say POTUS can't fire agency heads that work for him.

It's completely irrational to think an executive branch agency must retain an employee because the negative impact of wrongful removal is greater than the person remaining. We either have an executive branch or we have a ruling class.

More to the point:

I think you are correct that this is the fight they purposely picked to take down Humphrey's Executor.

The OSC is a pretty inconsequential office, so even losing the TRO/Injunction battle in the short term is of no real consequence.

But it is the perfect case to push forward… https://t.co/5NTbo7A6vO

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) February 13, 2025

LOL

Only a lawyer would try and argue that the CEO of the govt couldn't do CEO **** to said govt.


"It all matters what the definition of "is" is...."

GTFOH

army01 said:

---

I assumed this was about Trump and Sargent Slaughter wrestling.

---

Must Listen: Justice Gorsuch questions the attorney for fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter on basic executive functions:

Justice Gorsuch: “So even some quintessentially executive functions, in your view, are not vested in the president of the United States?”

Amit Agarwal:… pic.twitter.com/0I6RAcAfr0

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) December 8, 2025

I mean the constitution does say EXPLICITLY that the Executive(Art. II) Branch is vested in A PRESIDENT.

HAPPENING NOW: The Supreme Court hears a case from the Trump administration on the powers of the executive branch. Democrat justices believe expanding executive powers will make Trump even more of a king. 🙄

Elie Honig: "At one point, Justice Sotomayor said, 'Don't we risk… pic.twitter.com/PEZEMCjurj

— DeVory Darkins (@devorydarkins) December 8, 2025

Thread from Margot Cleveland.

2/ For those interested, here is a THREAD with some additional reading. https://t.co/iSXCXf85eV

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) December 8, 2025

4/ Justice Thomas: Asks whether there are any permissionable restrictions on President's removal on principal official? Saucer: NO. Even if completely arbitrary.

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) December 8, 2025

President Newsom is going to appreciate these new powers

amercer said:

---

President Newsom is going to appreciate these new powers

---

Minor quibble, these powers would not be new. The problem is the Federal Government has seized power the Founding Father never envisioned.

Any of you law dogs want to venture a guess as to how this will turn out?

will25u said:

---

Must Listen: Justice Gorsuch questions the attorney for fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter on basic executive functions:

Justice Gorsuch: “So even some quintessentially executive functions, in your view, are not vested in the president of the United States?”

Amit Agarwal:… pic.twitter.com/0I6RAcAfr0

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) December 8, 2025

---

Well, then, who WOULD they be vested in?

The legislative branch? Which has no executive power?

The judicial branch? Which has no executive power?

Or are they autonomous, with no oversight or control from any of the the 3 branches?



Because, I'm pretty sure that none of those are choices allowed through the Constitution...

e=mc2 said:

---

Any of you law dogs want to venture a guess as to how this will turn out?

---

I'm not much of a law dog, but probably 6-3 in favor of allowing the removal. Whether the Court will explicitly overrule Humphrey's Executor I'm much less certain.

Quote:

---

I mean the constitution does say EXPLICITLY that the Executive(Art. II) Branch is vested in A PRESIDENT.

---

Exactly. It also seems like Gorsuch baited him to set his argument in direct opposition to explicit words in the Constitution

Art II, Sec 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

To her credit, Justice Kagan is acknowledging that legislative and judicial power has been delegated to the executive branch and that's a very real problem. To Gorsuch's credit, the answer is to also stop allowing that rather than to solve THAT problem by limiting executive…

— Casey Mattox (@CaseyMattox_) December 8, 2025

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There are no independent agencies. Everything falls under one of three branches of government. Period.

Constitution 101

---

They DO exist. Independent federal agencies exist outside presidential control/Cabinet departments, often having specialized, rule-making, or quasi-legislative functions (e.g., SEC, NASA, Social Security, Federal Reserve). They are designed to operate with less political influence and include independent executive agencies and regulatory commissions.

AgCat93 said:

---

army01 said:

---

I assumed this was about Trump and Sargent Slaughter wrestling.

---

---

not gonna lie, would like to see Sarge cobra clutch a few justices just for the memes

TexasAggie81 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

There are no independent agencies. Everything falls under one of three branches of government. Period.

Constitution 101

---

They DO exist. Independent federal agencies exist outside presidential control/Cabinet departments, often having specialized, rule-making, or quasi-legislative functions (e.g., SEC, NASA, Social Security, Federal Reserve). They are designed to operate with less political influence and include independent executive agencies and regulatory commissions.

---

He's making the point there is no such thing as an independent unit of government under the US Constitution, and he's correct. Any unit of government has to be accountable to at least one of the three branches of Congress, President, or the Judiciary, because all government is empowered by the people who elect their congressman, president... or the judiciary which is nominated by an elected president and confirmed by an elected Senate.

They can not act "independently." That notion is preposterous. Even the Federal Reserve, which most people agree deserves extra consideration, is still accountable to the president who can remove a member "for cause."

The media is characterizing this as "Trump is trying to gain more power!" I don't care if it's Trump or Biden... I don't want any government officials thinking they can act "independently" from elected officials -- and by extension -- the people. I hope the SC smashes the concept of "independent" agencies and ensures they are accountable to the people thru their elected representatives, even if I don't agree with the representatives in office at the time.

I'll clarify that the SC appears to think Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in trying to create agencies independent from accountability to one of the elected branches. For the reasons I outlined, I think they're right.

amercer said:

---

President Newsom is going to appreciate these new powers

---

No one is voting for that clown

Justice Gorsuch easily dismantles the theory of the attorney for fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter:

“Maybe it’s a recognition that Humphrey’s Executor was poorly reasoned, and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that’s… pic.twitter.com/qI2vvvJljJ

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) December 8, 2025

Scalia on Morrison is upon us. Hope for the right outcome this time.

Whew!
I opened this thread thinking I was in trouble with the big guy.

I agree with Kagan here 100%.

They're unconstitutional.

will25u said:

---

Must Listen: Justice Gorsuch questions the attorney for fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter on basic executive functions:

Justice Gorsuch: “So even some quintessentially executive functions, in your view, are not vested in the president of the United States?”

Amit Agarwal:… pic.twitter.com/0I6RAcAfr0

— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) December 8, 2025

---

🚨 BREAKING: Justice Brett Kavanaugh intellectually PUMMELS DEI Justice Ketanji Jackson at the Supreme Court on whether President Trump can fire a Democrat member of the FTC 🔥

JACKSON: I don't understand why the president gets to control everything and outweigh Congress'… https://t.co/KJpFKPR8iR pic.twitter.com/rf7uI3YXst

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 8, 2025

richardag said:

---

amercer said:

---

President Newsom is going to appreciate these new powers

---

Minor quibble, these powers would not be new. The problem is the Federal Government has seized power the Founding Father never envisioned.

---

That's not even a minor quibble; it's the entire issue. Congress has been delegating its lawmaking responsibilities to the Executive branch and so-called "independent agencies" for generations. Jeff Childers explains the end result of this with this obvious insight (bolded):

Quote:

---

Together, Humphrey's and the now-defunct Chevron Doctrine formed a protective duo: Humphrey's shields agency bureaucrats, and Chevron shielded the substance of their actions. One analyst noted that this duo "paved the way for the modern administrative state" by limiting presidential (Humphrey's) and judicial (Chevron) meddling in agency activities.

You know how people always complain that, "you can elect Democrats or Republicans, but nothing ever changes?" This is why.

---

Action by SCOTUS to re-affirm the Executive's authority to fire its own employees needs to happen irrespective of which party holds the White House now or in the future. Our Constitution explicitly vested government power in elected positions that are accountable to the people. That must be restored. Why? Consider what happened during COVID. He continues:

Quote:

---

The only reason an unrestrained president is so powerful - why Democrats keep calling Trump a "king" - is because Congress keeps delegating its lawmaking powers to Executive agencies. For example, during the pandemic, HHS (an executive agency) was empowered by laws that Congress passed to declare on its own: (1) whether an emergency existed and for how long, (2) which people and products got legal liability immunity, and (3) who could be coerced into taking the shots.

Those pandemic policies should never have been delegated to unelected bureaucrats. They should have been debated by lawmakers, in public, and voted on, so we would know who should be hounded out of office in disgrace. (Another recent example - this one SCOTUS stopped - was when Biden's Department of Education tried twice to forgive half a trillion dollars in student loans. Again, Congress should be doing that kind of stuff.)

---

https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/for-cause-tuesday-december-9-2025

Just because other branches delegate power to the executive, doesn't mean you take powers away from the executive to neuter the executive.

If you want the powers you delegated to another branch, pull them back.

will25u said:

---

Just because other branches delegate power to the executive, doesn't mean you take powers away from the executive to neuter the executive.

If you want the powers you delegated to another branch, pull them back.

---

Exactly. Congress has managed to delegate all the real power away to the Executive and "independent" bureaucrats in exchange for reduced accountability at the ballot box. They've actually got a sweet deal: all the prestige and benefits of being a Rep or Senator without any accountability. If the President is a "king", it's only because Congress willingly made him so. The problem is that too many American voters haven't realized the bait-and-switch that actually happened.

I'm of the view that these organizations can be ostensibly apolitical and functional independently IF the president so chooses to allow it to do so. If the president decides that the organization isn't functioning as the law requires due to those who are operating it, then he can replace them and put them back on their legally mandated tasks. This does by nature give the president considerable influence over such agencies but that is for the voters to determine when they chose the president.