What Trump v. Slaughter means for reclaiming our government
Daily Digest 6/29/26
It turns out the president can fire executive appointees
The Supreme Court ruled today that the president is indeed the chief executive of the country, just as the Constitution says:
This morning, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the President of the United States has the authority to fire federal bureaucrats, specifically commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without needing to establish cause. The decision overturns nearly a century of precedent rooted in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), a case that came to define the modern idea of “independent agencies.”
To understand the significance of today’s ruling, it is worth returning to that earlier case.
Humphrey’s Executor arose during the early New Deal period. William Humphrey, a Republican appointed to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, found himself at odds with President Franklin Roosevelt’s economic agenda. Roosevelt requested his resignation in 1933, and when Humphrey refused, Roosevelt fired him anyway. The statute creating the FTC allowed commissioners to be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Roosevelt did not claim any of these grounds—only that Humphrey’s continued service was incompatible with the administration’s direction.
Humphrey contended that Roosevelt lacked the authority to remove him for purely political reasons and continued reporting to work despite no longer receiving a paycheck. Though he died in 1934, his estate sued the federal government for back pay. In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that the President could not remove an FTC commissioner in violation of the statute. The Court held that because the agency exercised both “quasi-judicial” and “quasi-legislative” functions, it was functionally independent and insulated from political control.
That distinction became one of the foundational building blocks of the modern administrative state—the system of agencies and bureaucracies that we often call the “deep state” today.
Make sure to click the button below to read the whole article, in which I examine the historical tension between the president and executive appointees and what it means for the separation of powers that our Founders intended.
These are the kinds of articles I really enjoy writing. They’re a chance to dig into history, jurisprudence, and current events, and come away with a greater understanding of how our country and our government work.
A victory for gun rights
Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s newsletter shares how his office helped win a victory for gun owners at the Supreme Court last week:
This week, the United States Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law that made it a crime for concealed carry permit holders to walk onto private property open to the public unless the owner had first given express permission. In a 6-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, the Court ruled that the law, known as the “Vampire Rule,” violated the Second Amendment. Violating it was a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in prison. The Court held that while private property owners may restrict firearm possession on their own property, the state itself cannot impose that restriction as the default rule for everyone.
I was part of getting this case to the Court in the first place. Along with Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, I led a coalition of 17 states in an amicus brief urging the justices to take up Wolford and reverse the Ninth Circuit, which had upheld Hawaii’s law even though the Second Circuit had struck down a similar restriction in New York under Antonyuk v. James. Two federal appeals courts had reached opposite conclusions on the same constitutional question, and only the Supreme Court could resolve which one was right.
Simpson celebrates
Congressman Mike Simpson celebrated America250 in his latest newsletter, along with the four year anniversary of the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade:
Four years ago, the United States Supreme Court made the correct decision and overturned Roe v. Wade.
I have long said that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, and thanks to the historic Dobbs decision, power was returned to the people, and the right to protect unborn life was restored. I’m proud to be a part of the pro-life movement and will continue to stand up for the unborn unapologetically. I am also proud to I am proud to have earned an A+ on SBA Pro-Life America’s scorecard. Defending the most vulnerable among us is one of my top priorities in Congress.
Press releases
Tomorrow is a huge day at the Supreme Court. We will learn of the Court’s decision in Little v. Hecox, which will determine if Rep. Barbara Ehardt’s Protecting Women’s Sports Act of 2020 can remain in effect. I expect a favorable ruling on this one, as a majority of justices have indicated their skepticism that men pretending to be women are a protected class in and of themselves.
However, that case will almost certainly be overshadowed by the result of Trump v. Barbara, which will decide if the text of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing citizenship to those born in this country extends even to aliens who cross our border illegally to give birth on American soil. In my view, the purpose of the amendment was clearly to ensure that freed slaves were considered American citizens, and that nobody intended it to grant citizenship to anyone who happened to be born on American dirt.
Even now we read stories of Chinese billionaires paying surrogates to give birth in America before returning home to raise their little Americans under the eyes of the Chinese Communist Party, or birth tourism schemes in which women come on tourist visas, give birth to American babies, and then qualify for residency and even public benefits.
It’s an important decision, but even if it goes awry we will keep fighting for what’s right and celebrate 250 years of American greatness. No blackpilling!
Video of the day
Former Virginia state assemblyman Nick Freitas is one of the best at articulating exactly what we’re fighting and how we must fight it. Last week he took aim at those who, like Tucker Carlson, seem more eager to fight those on their own side than our common adversaries on the left. Many such cases, even here in Idaho!
As always, thank you to sponsors Lynn Bradescu’s Boise Realty, Money Metals, and New Saint Andrews College. Thank you also to all the paid subscribers who make it possible for me to do what I do, as well as all the readers who are constantly encouraging me to keep it up. I appreciate you!