Preview: Trump Can Fire (Almost) Anyone Now

Summary

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick — "Trump Can Fire (Almost) Anyone Now" (June 29, 2026)

Episode Overview

In this special "Opinion Palooza" edition, host Dahlia Lithwick and legal expert Marc Joseph Stern dissect the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in the "Slaughter" case, a momentous ruling allowing President Donald Trump (and future presidents) to fire virtually anyone within independent federal agencies—substantially reallocating executive power and undermining decades of precedent. They explore the historic and practical consequences of this shift, its threat to agency independence, congressional authority, and the broader functioning of the U.S. government.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Slaughter Case: What Was Decided & Why It Matters

• Maximalist Ruling on Presidential Power

  • The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the president can remove at-will members of independent federal agencies.
  • Marc Joseph Stern [02:48]: "The conservative supermajority has effectively restructured the United States government in ways that are not required or even allowed by the federal Constitution."
  • The decision allows the president “absolute control over every federal agency except one,” with the hosts noting details on the sole exception later.

• Scope of the Decision

  • The president can now fire leadership across critical agencies: Federal Trade Commission, agencies regulating nuclear energy, consumer safety, unions, hazardous chemicals, mine safety, and even crypto—massive swaths of the federal bureaucracy.
  • Agencies explicitly crafted to be bipartisan, expert-driven, and insulated from direct political control are now vulnerable to political purges and cronyism.

• Immediate and Far-Reaching Effects

  • Marc Joseph Stern [03:44]: "He [Trump] is going to be able to fire the people he doesn't like, fire the Democrats, replace them with lackeys, and push them to carry out his own preferences rather than working on behalf of the American people."
  • The ruling’s impact could extend beyond agency heads to threaten civil service protections for federal employees, potentially politicizing broad ranks of career officials.

2. Overturning Precedent: The End of Humphrey’s Executor

• A Nearly Century-old Restraint on the Presidency

  • The Court formally overturns "Humphrey’s Executor" (1935), a unanimous decision that previously allowed Congress to create independent agencies and restrict presidential removal powers.
  • Dahlia Lithwick [04:48]: "The Court could have gone small, but this is a maximalist court going big every time and kneecap both Congress... Congress doesn't get to be interested if The Court tells them what they can do."

• Roberts Court's Maximalism

  • The hosts describe the ideological shift as not just revisiting but discarding foundational checks on executive dominance.
  • Marc Joseph Stern [05:38]: “Right now it’s the President is the Executive branch. He is his own branch of government. He exercises dictatorial control over the powers of his office.”
  • The decision, like the recent "Trump v. United States" immunity case, is another example of the Roberts Court "enshrining a maximalist view of presidential power" with little regard for precedent or historical practice.

3. Historical Context and the Loss of Moderation

• Court Dynamics and Loss of Moderation

  • The absence of centrist Justices (like Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O’Connor in previous eras) removes any brake on the current majority’s ambitions.
  • Marc Joseph Stern [06:23]: “[There is] no kind of moderate or swingy member of the conservative supermajority to rein in Roberts... this is now just John Roberts sort of wild ride across the dictatorial field of American governance that he’s created.”

• Broader Constitutional and Political Ramifications

  • The decision erodes congressional authority to shape agencies and eliminates mechanisms insulating critical governance from partisan swings.
  • The move is portrayed as destabilizing: “It swaps [history and precedent] in favor of authoritarianism within the Executive branch and quite possibly beyond.” [06:57]
  • This opens the door to sweeping removal of independent, expert civil servants, replaced with politically loyal appointees.

4. The End of Expert, Nonpartisan Government?

• Transformation of Public Institutions
  • The hosts warn that replacing experts with political loyalists undermines good governance and public service.
  • Marc Joseph Stern [07:36]: “It’s a disservice to the American people who have been served well by an executive branch staffed by merit, staffed by independent leaders, staffed by experts... who are all gonna be tossed out and replaced with Trump cronies.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the sweeping impact:

  • “This is not going to be repaired for a very long time...if it's ever undone, because this is a constitutional holding...”
    — Marc Joseph Stern [03:27]

• On the history overruled:

  • “A nearly century-old precedent that I think has served this nation very well...the President is not a dictator and he doesn’t have total and absolute control over every inch of the Executive branch. And today the Supreme Court just throws all that out.”
    — Marc Joseph Stern [05:38]

• On the Roberts Court’s new paradigm:

  • “It is sweeping, it is maximalist, it is aggressive. I think it’s another example...where there is no kind of moderate or swingy member of the conservative supermajority to rein in Roberts...”
    — Marc Joseph Stern [06:23]

• On the consequences for government integrity:

  • “It’s a disservice to the American people who have been served well by an executive branch staffed by merit, staffed by independent leaders, staffed by experts in the field who are all gonna be tossed out and replaced with Trump cronies who will do whatever he wants.”
    — Marc Joseph Stern [07:36]

Important Timestamps

• 00:41: Introduction to the topics and significance of the Court’s decisions.
• 01:56: Discussion of public reactions and the cultural/political climate.
• 02:48: Detailed walkthrough of what the Slaughter decision does.
• 04:48: Implications of overturning Humphrey’s Executor and effects on Congressional power.
• 05:38: Reflection on the historical context, precedent, and warning about authoritarianism.
• 06:23–07:36: Warnings on the lack of judicial moderation and devastating future effects for governance.

Tone & Style

The conversation blends urgency, sharp legal critique, occasional humor, and a sense of deep concern for the erosion of longstanding norms. Lithwick and Stern speak in a frank, accessible manner, offering both legal analysis and political context.

---

This summary covers the essential topics, dynamics, and memorable exchanges of the episode, helping those who missed it understand why the "Slaughter" decision—while technical on its face—portends a seismic shift in the structure and functioning of American governance.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Hello and welcome to another Opinion Palooza extra edition of Amicus, Slate's podcast about the courts and the law and the Supreme Court. I'm Dahlia Lithwick. This pop up episode is exclusive to our Slate plus members. Go to slate.comamicus plus to join.

[B]

And I'm Marc Joseph Stern. We can't do any of this without the support of our amazing plusketeers. And thanks to their support, we are also able to share some of this conversation with our audiences on YouTube and on our main Amicus channels.

[A]

So welcome to all of you. Welcome to you, Marc. You are here to chew over the decisions that came down on Monday morning. This is the penultimate day of the court's 2025 term. The last four decisions are going to come down Tuesday morning, which point we can all just face plant directly into the algae covered reflecting pond until next term. Like, I'm so excited about the algae. I can't even, I'm just like, it's like a mask at this point.

[B]

I have not been down to the reflecting pool to see the algae. I did go to the Great American State Fair this weekend. I know it was as depressing as everyone Sundays. And those MAGA folks who traveled thousands of miles to see it, I think there might be a few of them who find finally leave the cult because of this. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but that's gonna be my hope.

[A]

I loved your blue sky rant about the, like, weird handmaid's tale, like, signifying pizza signs. Like, it was so like, we don't

[B]

need pizza and there was no pizza.

[A]

We don't need.

[B]

I promised my son pizza. What does a pizza emoji mean on a flag outside a food hall if not pizza? Dalia. But there was none to be had. And I was the bad dad that day.

[A]

I laughed very hard. Okay, so Mark, let's, let's do this because actually Monday was very consequent. So let's dive into the decisions in reverse order, which lands us in some very no good news, which is the Slaughter case. The court votes 6 to 3 to allow President Donald Trump to fire anybody he wants from independent agencies that Congress intentionally designed to be free of political influence. And Slaughter's not going to get the attention that I think it deserves. But I think you agree with me. This is going to be the cause of absolute devastation for how the federal government runs, for how independent agencies are independent. This is not going to be repaired for a very long time. We've talked about this case all term. Walk us through where we are and how we got here.

[B]

Yeah. The conservative supermajority has effectively restructured the United States government in ways that are not required or even allowed by the federal Constitution. And that will have sweeping implications for pretty much everyone. But starting with Donald Trump, who can now assert absolute control over every federal agent agency except one, which we'll talk about in a second. But here, he is allowed to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission. He'll also be able to fire members of agencies that regulate nuclear energy, consumer safety, unions, hazardous chemicals, mine safety, crypto, very large swaths of the economy. Basically, all of these bodies that Congress set up to enforce the law in a neutral, bipartisan or nonpartisan way, relying on experts, they're now just going to become an arm of the White House and of Donald Trump's agenda. And he is going to be able to fire the people he doesn't like, fire the Democrats, replace them with lackeys, and push them to carry out his own preferences rather than working on behalf of the American people. And as you said, Dalia, like, this is gonna take a long time to undo if it's ever undone, because this is a constitutional holding that says, as a rule, the president just has this unenumerated right to fire people at will. And I'm very worried that the reasoning here extends beyond the heads of agencies down the civil service. I mean, there's a lot of language in Chief Justice Roberts opinion for the 6:3 majority that suggests that anyone who is exercising any kind of executive power, who qualifies as a subordinate of the president must be removable at will. And the Trump administration has already been arguing that that includes many, if not all members of the federal civil service. Right. Federal employees across the executive branch who have long had these protections based on merit, based on the idea that this shouldn't be all just partisan politics. That idea is under fire from this opinion. So we know the immediate consequences, but they could get a whole lot worse.

[A]

This all happened on the shadow docket, so anybody who's surprised wasn't paying attention. But one of the things that happens is the express decision to overturn Humphrey's executor. And we've been talking about that case truly all year for more than that. The court could have gone small, but this is a maximalist court going big every time and kneecap both Congress. Right. It's really important to be clear that we keep talking about, like, oh, you know, supine, you know, uninterested Congress, but, like, Congress doesn't get to be interested if The Court tells them what they can do and then I think just independent, thoughtful, as you suggested, neutral expertise, it's all gone.

[B]

All gone. And so too is a nearly century old precedent that I think has served this nation very well. Right. Humphrey's executor was a 91 year decision unanimous by the Supreme Court that very sensibly held that Congress in its constitutional authority to create these agencies, also has authority to limit their partisan influence by the White House and to limit the President's ability to interfere with them because they are part of the executive branch. But the President is not a dictator and he doesn't have total and absolute control over every inch of the Executive branch. And today the Supreme Court just throws all that out. Right now it's the President is the Executive branch. He is his own branch of government. He exercises dictatorial control over the powers of his office. And that is, I mean, it's, it's really ahistorical, it is sweeping, it is maximalist, it is aggressive. I think it's another example of this dynamic that you and I have been talking about where there is no kind of moderate or swingy member of the conservative supermajority to rein in Roberts to say, I don't know if we need to go this far. That used to be Anthony Kennedy, that used to be Sandra J. O'. Connor. Right. The Court did not go full unitary executive specifically because there were members of the majority who had some concerns about it, who exercised moderation. And with them gone, this is now just John Roberts sort of wild ride across the dictatorial field of American governance that he's created. It is a sequel in a lot of ways to Trump versus United States. The presidential immunity case, also written by Roberts, also enshrined a maximalist view of presidential power. Right? And it is a complete disregard for precedent, for legitimate history as done by real historians. And it swaps that in favor of authoritarianism within the Executive branch and quite possibly beyond. Right? Sapping Congress's enumerated powers in favor of this unenumerated, unwritten rule of presidential removal. And it's a disservice to the American people who have been served well by an executive branch staffed by merit, staffed by independent leaders, staffed by experts in the field who are all gonna be tossed out and replaced with Trump cronies who will do whatever he wants.

[A]

Slate plus members can access our conversation in full right now. Visit slate.comamicusplus to get access wherever you listen to.

[B]

Get all our opinionpalooza extras across slate.com and here on Amicus. Go to slate.com amicusplus by joining, you'll

[A]

be supporting our work. Thank you.

[B]

Slate+ members can also join us live for our end of term roundup and exclusive Q and A, which is the sharpest legal minds we know all of July.

[A]

We're going to be exploring the biggest questions emerging from this term and we would love for you to come along with us.

[B]

You can also subscribe to Slate plus directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcast.