The Supreme Court's conservative majority is on a mission to expand the president's power, a trend that has been brewing long before Donald Trump's presidency. This shift is particularly evident in the upcoming case, which challenges a 90-year-old decision limiting executive authority. The court's conservative justices, as noted by liberal Justice Elena Kagan, seem eager to take a bold step. They've already shown their willingness to support Trump's actions, allowing him to remove key figures from various independent agencies, despite the 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision prohibiting such removals without cause. This includes Rebecca Slaughter's firing from the Federal Trade Commission, which is at the center of the current legal battle. The court's stance on the Federal Reserve's Lisa Cook, accused of mortgage fraud, further highlights their potential bias. The conservative legal movement's embrace of the 'unitary executive' theory, which grants the president extensive power, has been a driving force behind these decisions. This theory, as Justice Antonin Scalia once wrote, suggests that all executive power belongs to the president. Since 2010, under Chief Justice John Roberts' leadership, the Supreme Court has consistently eroded laws restricting the president's ability to fire individuals. In 2020, Roberts' decision upheld Trump's firing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head, despite job protections. The court's 2024 immunity ruling, which shielded Trump from prosecution for his role in the 2020 election, further emphasized the president's power to fire at will. However, legal scholars and historians argue that Roberts may be misinterpreting the history of the 'unitary executive' theory. They suggest that the Constitution's Article II is more nuanced, and the court should reconsider its stance. This controversy invites discussion and invites the public to question the court's interpretation of presidential power.
