Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Looks Like the Supreme Court Will Continue to Overturn the 20th Century - Kate Shaw, William Baude and Steve Vladeck
NYT - Gift LinkOn Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that will decide whether Congress can require cause before the president removes the heads of most independent agencies.
To assess the arguments and explore the vast implications, Kate Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Will Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.”
Kate Shaw: Let’s dive right in. Most observers of the Supreme Court have assumed that the court will bless the president’s ability to fire heads of independent agencies at will, and that it will overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the New Deal-era case that affirmed the constitutionality of independent agency heads with a degree of protection from presidential removal. Did anyone hear anything from the oral arguments that suggests a different outcome?
Will Baude: Nope. The question is not whether the court will overturn Humphrey’s Executor, but how, and how broadly.
Stephen Vladeck: Indeed, there was just one question about the second issue the court asked the parties to brief and argue, which would matter only if the government loses on the president’s removal power. The signal is that it won’t matter because the government’s not losing.
To assess the arguments and explore the vast implications, Kate Shaw, a contributing Opinion writer, hosted a written online conversation with Will Baude, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown and the author of “The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic.”
Kate Shaw: Let’s dive right in. Most observers of the Supreme Court have assumed that the court will bless the president’s ability to fire heads of independent agencies at will, and that it will overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the New Deal-era case that affirmed the constitutionality of independent agency heads with a degree of protection from presidential removal. Did anyone hear anything from the oral arguments that suggests a different outcome?
Will Baude: Nope. The question is not whether the court will overturn Humphrey’s Executor, but how, and how broadly.
Stephen Vladeck: Indeed, there was just one question about the second issue the court asked the parties to brief and argue, which would matter only if the government loses on the president’s removal power. The signal is that it won’t matter because the government’s not losing.
I don’t write the headlines but I do like this one (post-Slaughter argument roundtable for @nytimes.com with @stevevladeck.bsky.social & @williambaude.bsky.social)
— Kate Shaw (@kateshaw.bsky.social) 2025-12-09T13:01:01.190Z
www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/o...