{"id":707,"date":"2026-07-01T10:11:59","date_gmt":"2026-07-01T10:11:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/relocationacrossamerica.com\/?p=707"},"modified":"2026-07-01T10:11:59","modified_gmt":"2026-07-01T10:11:59","slug":"supreme-court-ruling-in-trump-v-slaughter-turbocharges-presidential-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/relocationacrossamerica.com\/?p=707","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Slaughter turbocharges presidential power"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The U.S. Supreme Court \u2013 with its six conservative justices, three of whom were nominated by President Donald Trump \u2013 has recently reversed landmark decisions that have long guided American government and society. Over the last few years, the court has stripped federal protection of abortion rights, affirmative action, gun control, and a significant portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.<\/p>\n

Read more \u201cLast Week Tonight\u201d host John Oliver checks in to \u201cGeneral Hospital\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

In its highly anticipated decision on June 29, 2026, in the case of , the court has added the political independence of nominally independent agencies to that list, allowing the president to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission. The ruling overturns a case that had held sway for 91 years.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s 6-3 decision in Slaughter also effectively endorses the unitary executive theory, thereby greatly expanding the power of the president.<\/p>\n

As a political science scholar who studies presidential power, I believe the unitary executive theory is perhaps the most contentious and consequential constitutional theory of the past several decades. And its judicial approval threatens to upend much of American governance.<\/p>\n

A prescription for a potent presidency<\/h2>\n

In 2017, Trump complained that the scope of his power as president was limited: \u201cYou know, the saddest thing is that because I\u2019m the president of the United States, I am not supposed to be involved with the Justice Department. I am not supposed to be involved with the FBI, I\u2019m not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I\u2019m very frustrated by it.\u201d<\/p>\n

The unitary executive theory suggests that such limits wrongly curtail the powers of the chief executive.<\/p>\n

Formed by conservative legal theorists in the 1980s to help President Ronald Reagan roll back liberal policies, the unitary executive theory promises to radically expand presidential power.<\/p>\n

There is no widely agreed upon definition of the theory. And even its proponents disagree about what it says and what it might justify. But in its most basic version, the unitary executive theory claims that whatever the federal government does that is executive in nature \u2013 from implementing and enforcing laws to managing most of what the federal government does \u2013 the president alone should personally control it.<\/p>\n

This means the president should have total control over the executive branch, with its dozens of major governmental institutions and millions of employees. Put simply, the theory says the president should be able to issue orders to subordinates and to fire them at will.<\/p>\n

The president could boss around the FBI or order the U.S. attorney general to investigate his political opponents, as Trump has done. The president could issue signing statements \u2013 a written pronouncement \u2013 that reinterpret or ignore parts of the laws, like George W. Bush did in 2006 to circumvent a ban on torture. The president could control independent agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. And the president might possess inherent power to wage war as he sees fit without a formal authorization from Congress, as officials argued during Bush\u2019s presidency.<\/p>\n

A constitutionally questionable doctrine<\/h2>\n

A theory is one thing. But if it gains the official endorsement of the Supreme Court, it can become governing orthodoxy. It appears to many observers and scholars that Trump\u2019s actions intentionally invited court cases by which he hoped the judiciary would embrace the theory and thus permit him to do even more. And now the court has effectively granted Trump that wish.<\/p>\n

Until recently, the judiciary tended to indirectly address the claims that now appear more formally as the unitary executive theory.<\/p>\n

During the country\u2019s first two centuries, courts touched on aspects of the theory in cases such as Kendall v. U.S. in 1838, which limited presidential control of the postmaster general, and Myers v. U.S. in 1926, which held that the president could remove a postmaster in Oregon.<\/p>\n

In 1935, in Humphrey\u2019s Executor v. U.S., the high court unanimously held that Congress could limit the president\u2019s ability to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. And in Morrison v. Olson the court in 1988 upheld the ability of Congress to limit the president\u2019s ability to fire an independent counsel.<\/p>\n

Some of those decisions aligned with some unitary executive claims, but others directly repudiated them.<\/p>\n

Warming up to a unitary executive<\/h2>\n

In a series of cases over the past 15 years, the Supreme Court moved in an unambiguously unitarian, pro-presidential direction. In these cases, the court on the president\u2019s ability to remove federal officials, enabling much greater presidential control.<\/p>\n

Read more SCOTUS birthright citizenship decision: MAGA brands Amy Coney Barrett \u201cDEI hire\u201d over \u201cbetrayal\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

These decisions clearly suggest that long-standing, anti-unitarian landmark decisions such as Humphrey\u2019s were on thin ice. In fact, in Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019 2019 in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, where the court ruled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau\u2019s leadership structure was unconstitutional, he articulated his desire to \u201crepudiate\u201d the \u201cerroneous precedent\u201d of Humphrey\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Several cases from the court\u2019s emergency docket, or shadow docket in 2025 indicated that other justices shared that desire. Such cases do not require full arguments but can indicate where the court is headed.<\/p>\n

In Trump v. Wilcox, Trump v. Boyle and Trump v. Slaughter, all from 2025, the court upheld Trump\u2019s firing of officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.<\/p>\n

Previously, these officials had appeared to be protected from political interference.<\/p>\n

Total control<\/h2>\n

Remarks by conservative justices in those cases indicated that the court would reassess anti-unitary precedents.<\/p>\n

In Trump v. Boyle, wrote, \u201cwhether this Court will narrow or overrule a precedent \u2026 there is at least a fair prospect (not certainty, but at least a reasonable prospect) that we will do so.\u201d And said the conservative majority was \u201craring\u201d to overturn Humphrey\u2019s and finally officially embrace the unitary executive.<\/p>\n

In short, the writing was on the wall. Chief Justice John Roberts authored on June 29. It did not explicitly invoke the unitary executive theory, but its fealty to the doctrine was clear.<\/p>\n

As for the status of the anti-unitarian precedent of Humphrey\u2019s, the court claimed its logic has \u201cnot withstood the test of time\u201d and had been effectively undermined for decades. The majority then declared, \u201cIf anything more is left of Humphrey\u2019s, we overrule it.\u201d<\/p>\n

As for what judicial endorsement of the unitary executive theory will mean in practice, Trump seems to hope it will mean total control and hence the ability to eradicate the so-called \u201cdeep state.\u201d Other conservatives hope it will diminish the government\u2019s regulatory role.<\/p>\n

it could mean the end of administrative governance \u2013 the ways that the federal government provides services, oversees businesses and enforces the law \u2013 as we know it:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cHumphrey\u2019s undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control. Congress created them \u2026 out of one basic vision. It thought that in certain spheres of government, a group of knowledgeable people from both parties \u2013 none of whom a President could remove without cause \u2013 would make decisions likely to advance the long-term public good.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

, in which she was joined by the other two liberals, echoed the worry about governance, saying that independent agencies will be \u201ctransformed in ways that those who created them never could have expected and actively sought to avoid.\u201d<\/p>\n

She also noted that complete presidential control over independent agencies would significantly enhance the power of the president at the expense of Congress, \u201cfundamentally recalibrating the balance of power in this country in the process.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is an updated version of a story that was first published on Oct. 7, 2025.<\/em>