Everyone’s fired now

Summary

Podcast Summary: Today, Explained — "Everyone’s fired now" (December 10, 2025)

Overview

This episode of Today, Explained dives into the Supreme Court case “Trump v. Slaughter,” a landmark showdown over presidential power, federal agency independence, and the fate of a 90-year-old legal precedent. Host Noel King, with legal experts Ian Millhiser (Vox) and Noah Rosenblum (NYU Law), breaks down why President Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, an FTC commissioner, has massive implications for how much power presidents—and the courts—hold over the so-called independent arms of government. The episode explores the history and legal theory at play, the personalities involved, the Supreme Court’s likely direction, and why it all matters far beyond today’s headlines.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Case: Why Is Trump v. Slaughter Important?

• Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not for cause, but because he disagreed with her politics ([02:07-03:06]).
• The FTC, like other independent agencies, is structured by Congress to protect its commissioners from being removed at will—unless there's neglect or malfeasance.
• This case will decide if presidents can fire such commissioners at will, altering the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies.

"Trump just claims... since I disagree with your politics, I'm going to fire you."
— Ian Millhiser ([03:00])

2. What Is the Unitary Executive Theory?

• The Trump team argues for expansive presidential power, rooted in the “unitary executive theory”—the idea that all executive branch officials must be fully under the president’s control ([04:30-05:06]).
• This reading relies on vague constitutional language, especially the phrase “the executive power shall be vested in the President.”

"If there is something that some government official is doing that is executive in nature, then that person must be under the full control of the President, and the President must have the power to fire them at will."
— Ian Millhiser ([04:42])

3. The Legal Precedent: Humphrey’s Executor

• The main case on the other side is Humphrey’s Executor v. US (1935), where the Supreme Court ruled Congress can insulate independent agency officials from presidential removal ([05:14-05:25], [18:06-22:07]).
• This precedent has held for 90 years but is now being reconsidered directly.

4. How Likely Is the Supreme Court to Overturn Precedent?

• Millhiser: The conservative majority on the Court strongly favors the unitary executive theory and is very likely to back Trump—even if the president were someone else ([05:52-06:42]).

"I am certain that Trump is gonna win this case."
— Ian Millhiser ([05:52])

• He argues it's less about Trump, more about a consistent conservative legal worldview.

5. What Are the Dangers of Expanding Presidential Firing Power?

• Congress creates independent agencies for technocratic expertise and to avoid political pressure in crucial sectors, like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Reserve ([06:52-08:09]).
• Presidential power over agencies like the Fed could allow for economically reckless actions (e.g., manipulating the economy for electoral benefit).

"The Federal Reserve essentially has the power to inject cocaine into the economy… you don't want the President to control the Federal Reserve."
— Ian Millhiser ([09:09])

• The Court previously carved out the Federal Reserve as an exception but gave a vague, unconvincing legal rationale ([08:26-10:48]).

6. Who Loses Power if the President Wins?

• The major loser is Congress. Historically, Congress determined which agencies could be independent. If the Court rules for the president, it will shift that power from Congress to the executive—and, in practice, to the judiciary ([11:00-11:52]).

7. Will the Rule Apply No Matter Who Is President?

• Yes. Millhiser and Rosenblum stress that the decision, if broad, will empower all presidents, regardless of party.
• However, partisanship plays a role in how justices interpret and apply the Constitution ([12:18-13:26]).

"The Democratic Party's vision is more Democratic… The Republican Party's vision… concentrates power in the judiciary. It gives the judiciary the final word."
— Ian Millhiser ([12:18-13:26])

8. Is the Supreme Court Grabbing Power for Itself?

• Ultimately, both experts suggest the Court is increasing its own power by reserving the authority to define executive independence ([13:26-13:44]).

"That is the takeaway here."
— Ian Millhiser ([13:36])

---

History & Legal Theory in Depth (with Historian Noah Rosenblum)

9. The Origins of Humphrey’s Executor ([17:49-22:07])

• Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire a conservative FTC commissioner, William Humphrey, to push forward New Deal reforms.
• The Court sided with Humphrey, upholding limits on the president’s firing power for independent agency appointees.

"It thus came as a tremendous surprise when the Court unanimously went against the Roosevelt administration."
— Noah Rosenblum ([21:17])

10. The Long Life and Challenge to Humphrey’s

• The precedent held for decades. Ronald Reagan’s administration tried to challenge it (Morrison v. Olson, featuring a now-famous Scalia dissent), but only with the rise of the Roberts Court did concerted attempts to overturn it gain real momentum ([22:16-24:42]).

"[Scalia's] position is unbelievably fringe. ... William Rehnquist ... wrote ... my brother Scalia is trying to put more weight than the words will bear—so that's a gentlemanly way of saying, Scalia, you're out of your mind."
— Noah Rosenblum ([22:44-23:00])

11. What Happens If Humphrey’s Is Overturned?

• It could remove essential insulation from political pressure for major agencies, leaving vital public functions subject to the political whims of whoever is president at the time ([24:58-27:16]).
• Rosenblum warns of “telephone justice” where “every time you go to a government bureau, do you want to have to wait for the person who makes the decision to say hold on, I got to go take a phone call from the White House to figure out how to rule on your application? … That’s telephone justice. That’s what the Soviets do. That’s not what the United States does.” ([25:23])

"We have a hundred year tradition ... there's a lot to be learned from that tradition and we should be careful before we throw it out."
— Noah Rosenblum ([27:16])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Trump just claims... since I disagree with your politics, I'm going to fire you." — Ian Millhiser ([03:00])
• "If there is something that some government official is doing that is executive in nature, then that person must be under the full control of the President, and the President must have the power to fire them at will." — Ian Millhiser ([04:42])
• "I am certain that Trump is gonna win this case." — Ian Millhiser ([05:52])
• "The Federal Reserve essentially has the power to inject cocaine into the economy… you don't want the President to control the Federal Reserve." — Ian Millhiser ([09:09])
• "That is the takeaway here." — Ian Millhiser ([13:36])
• "That’s telephone justice. That’s what the Soviets do. That’s not what the United States does." — Noah Rosenblum ([25:23])

---

Timeline & Timestamps

• [02:07-03:06] — Why Trump fired Slaughter, and why that’s a legal issue
• [04:30-05:06] — The unitary executive theory explained
• [05:14-05:25] — Humphrey’s Executor, the precedent
• [05:52-06:42] — Predictions on Supreme Court outcome
• [06:52-08:09] — Purpose of independent agencies (NRC, Federal Reserve)
• [08:26-10:48] — Why the Fed is “special” but without a clear legal rationale
• [11:00-11:52] — Where Congress loses power, judiciary gains
• [12:18-13:26] — How partisanship shapes legal views on separation of powers
• [17:49-22:07] — The history behind Humphrey’s Executor
• [22:16-24:42] — Attempts to challenge the precedent before Roberts Court
• [24:58-27:16] — Rosenblum’s warning: “telephone justice” and consequences of overturning Humphrey’s

---

Conclusion

The episode presents an in-depth, accessible look at a Supreme Court case that could dramatically reshape the balance of U.S. government power. It spells out the stakes for presidents, Congress, the judiciary, and everyday Americans, all through clear historical context, legal theory, and lively expert commentary. The takeaway? The ongoing struggle over who controls America’s powerful independent agencies isn’t just about personalities or today’s politics—it’s about fundamental constitutional ideas that will affect national governance for generations.

Transcript

[Noel King]

There are many people who President Trump can fire, and with a little help from his friends, he did. But even Elon's time ran out. Would you do Doge again, knowing what you know now?

[Ian Millhiser]

Instead of doing Doge, I would have worked in my companies, essentially, and they wouldn't have been burning the cars.

[Noel King]

As many as 300,000 federal workers got doge this year in various ways. Trump also fired, among others, the inspector generals of the epa, the Department of Education, the Defense Department, the commissioner of the bls, the chair of the fec, the commissioner of peoc, and so much more. All of those were probably legal firings. But can Trump fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission? This is the agency that oversees consumer protections and fights monopolies. Trump says yes, Slaughter says no. She took him to Supreme Court. Supreme Court is going to rule and when they do, it'll have big, big implications for the president's power. That's coming up on Today Explained.

[Odoo Sponsor]

Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one, fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for [e-mail] that's o d o o.com.

[Noah Rosenblum]

How does F1 turn data into insights at 200 mph? AWS is how fans get inside the strategy.

[Noel King]

AWS powers next level innovation for millions of businesses.

[Ian Millhiser]

Today.

Today explained.

I'm Ian Millhiser and I cover the Supreme Court.

[Noel King]

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week for a case that involves President Trump and someone that President Trump fired.

[Ian Millhiser]

Yes.

[Noel King]

Who is this person?

[Ian Millhiser]

This person is Rebecca Slaughter. She is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.

[Noah Rosenblum]

I am deeply honored and grateful to lead the FTC at this critical time.

[Ian Millhiser]

And the reason why her job matters is that there are many federal agencies, they are called independent agencies where the leaders of those agencies cannot be fired for any reason at all. They can only be fired for cause. The statute for the Federal Trade Commission says they could be fired for neglect or malfeasance or reasons like that. And Trump don't doesn't claim that she was neglectful or malfeasant. You know, Trump Just claims that, like, look, you want to do things that I don't agree with, and since I disagree with your politics, I'm going to fire you.

[Noel King]

I was at my daughter's elementary school when I checked my email and saw this email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office purporting to fire us or fire me specifically.

[Ian Millhiser]

And the statute says he's not allowed to do that.

[Noel King]

They gave no cause. And I think it's really important to note, because there is no cause to fire us.

[Ian Millhiser]

But Trump says that as the president, he, under the Constitution, can fire virtually any agency leader he wants.

[Noel King]

What is that called? What is the power here that the President is claiming, and why is he claiming that he has it? If the rules are written, you can't go ahead and fire Ms. Slaughter. What is his team arguing?

[Ian Millhiser]

So, you know, just to set a baseline, the President can fire most government officials, like all of the secretaries of the various cabinet departments, their deputies, all of those presidential appointees he can fire whenever he wants. It's only when Congress writes a special law saying this agency is going to be structured differently. Typically, they have multi member boards, so there's actually five commissioners who run the FTC and not just one person. And then the statute says that those are the only people that are protected. Trump's theory, or his lawyer's theory, is something called the unitary executive.

[Noah Rosenblum]

The constitutional design sets up three branches of government. It forbids Congress from controlling what the executive branch does, and it also forbids Congress from shaving away the President's control.

[Ian Millhiser]

And the idea behind the unitary executive, There is a provision of the Constitution which says that the executive power is vested in the President of the United States. And so if there is something that some government official is doing that is executive in nature, then that person must be under the full control of the President, and the President must have the power to fire them at will.

[Noel King]

All right, so that's what the President has to say. Rebecca Slaughter's team is saying, you don't have the right to fire her. And they are citing what exactly?

[Ian Millhiser]

The most important thing that they have on their side is a Supreme court decision from 90 years ago called Humphreys Executor v. United States.

[Framer/Rippling Sponsor]

We know that, for example, from this court's unanimous decision.

[Ian Millhiser]

And Humphreys executor, and Humphrey's executor of the United States also involved the Federal Trade Commission. President Roosevelt wanted to fire someone on the ftc. The Supreme Court said, no, Congress is allowed to create this independent agency to insulate its members from being Fired.

[Noel King]

The Supreme Court of late, as you have, as you have written time and again for vox, has been siding with President Trump.

[Ian Millhiser]

Yes.

[Noel King]

What do you think is gonna happen here?

[Ian Millhiser]

I am certain that Trump is gonna win this case. This unitary executive theory, and, you know, Republicans generally have taken a shining to this theory. There are six Republicans on the Supreme Court. It has been the dominant theory of how the President works amongst Republicans for the last four decades or so. Like, I don't even think that this is a. The Supreme Court being sycophantic to Trump case. This is a Republicans really, really believe in this thing case. They really believe that the universe, the universal executive, is the corre way of reading the Constitution. I think this case would have come down the exact same way if President Marco Rubio had fired Rebecca Slaughter, or for that matter, if President Joe Biden had fired Rebecca Slaughter. Like the Republican justices just really believe in this thing.

[Noel King]

All right, so let's say the Supreme Court, these are nine of the smartest people in the country. What are they failing to see here? What are the potential problems as you see them?

[Ian Millhiser]

So there are lots of reasons why Congress creates independent agencies. Sometimes they make the agency independent because they wanted to exercise technocratic expertise and they don't want politics to come into it. So think of an agency like the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose job is to make sure that nuclear plants are operated safely, that they don't melt down, that the waste is stored safely. It's stored away from people who could be poisoned by it. You want an agency like that to be independent because you want it to make technocratic decisions. You don't want it to make political decisions. That's one reason why you have independent agencies. A second reason is that sometimes there's a conflict of interest, and then sometimes it is dangerous if an agency is controlled by political figures. And the quintessential example of this is the Federal Reserve.

[Noel King]

Yes.

President Trump has made very clear that he wants the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, out. Jerome Powell has pointed to the fact that President Trump cannot simply.

And these two men have enjoyed going at each other in the past couple of months.

[Ian Millhiser]

You just added in a third building is what that is. That's a third building.

[Noel King]

It's a building that's being built.

[Ian Millhiser]

No, it was built five years ago.

[Noel King]

If the Supreme Court in this case rules in favor of the president and his argument, does that mean that tomorrow Donald Trump can turn around and fire Jerome Powell?

[Ian Millhiser]

So the answer to that is probably no. And the reason why, I mean, there isn't really a principled reason why, but the Supreme Court handed down a case called Trump v. Wilcox. And Trump v. Wilcox essentially said that the Federal Reserve is special and is not subject to this unitary executive rule. I'll read you what they said. They only gave a one sentence explanation of why the Federal Reserve is special. And that sentence is the Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured quasi private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the first and second Banks of the United States.

Now, I'm a fluent English speaker. I recognize that every one of those words are English. I know what they all mean. I even know a lot about the history of the first and second Banks of the United States, cuz there's a lot of constitutional litigation over it. And I read those cases in law school. I have no idea what that sentence means. It is gibberish. It's clear that a majority of the Justices want the Fed to be treated differently. And there's a good reason why. The reason why is because the Federal Reserve essentially has the power to inject cocaine into the economy. The Federal Reserve, if it wants, can lower interest rates as low as it can go, open up the spigot of the money supply. And what that will do is in the short term, it'll stimulate the economy and things will be great. And then sometime down the road, months or years down the road, you'll have a crazy amount of inflation and things will be much, much worse. And so the reason why you don't want the President to control the Federal Reserve or be able to pressure its governors by threatening to fire them is a President is likely to say in an election year, I want you to use that cocaine power Fed. I want you to stimulate the economy during this election year because I want my party to win. And so I think that the justices recognize the policy reasons why it's a bad idea for the President to control the Federal Reserve. But there isn't really a principled legal argument for why the Fed should be treated differently than say, the ftc. So they give us this gobbledygook about quasi private entities and like I said, I don't know what that means.

[Noel King]

Hmm. It strikes me that in Washington, power is a zero sum game. So if President Trump, if the court sides with him and he gets more power, somebody in Washington gets less power. Who is that?

[Ian Millhiser]

Congress is. The answer to that question, like the constitutional provision that proponents of the unitary executive rely on, is very vague. It just says the executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States. It doesn't define the term executive. So, like, we don't actually know which things that the government does are executive in nature and which things are not executive in nature. And so historically, since Humphrey's executive, the rule has been that Congress has broad leeway to decide which agencies are independent and which agencies are not. And if the Slaughter case comes down the way that I think it's going to come down, it's going to mean that Congress is going to lose some, somewhere between some and all of that power. And instead the court is going to decide which agencies can be independent, which agencies cannot.

[Noel King]

Now, earlier you said that the Supreme Court is not siding with Donald Trump and they are not siding with Republicans. They are siding with the President of the United States, which means in 2028, if a Democrat is elected President, the Supreme Court's ruling also applies to that Democrat. That Democratic president then gets to fire whoever he or she wants. Is that what we're looking at here?

[Noah Rosenblum]

Yes.

[Ian Millhiser]

But I will add one additional caveat to this, and here is where the partisanship comes in. Justices appointed by Republican presidents, Republican justices and justices appointed by Democratic presidents. Democratic justices tend to have very different views about the separation of powers. The Democrats view is that generally we want these decisions to be decided by Congress. So we want Congress to decide which agencies are independent. We also want Congress to be able to decide how much power is delegated to an agency. The Democratic Party's vision is more Democratic. You know, it tends to place power in the people's representatives in Congress, whereas the Republican Party's vision really concentrates power in the judiciary. It gives the judiciary the final word on which agencies can be independent and not Congress. But then it does still check those agencies power because it also gives the justices a veto power over the substantive actions that those agencies take.

[Noel King]

Okay, everything you've just said makes me think, and I didn't go in thinking this, the Supreme Court actually wants more power for the Supreme Court.

[Ian Millhiser]

Yes, that is the takeaway here.

[Noel King]

That was Vox's Ian Millhiser coming up next. Who is this Humphreys? What is this? Executor.

Support for today explained comes from Shopify. Shopify believes that one of the most exciting parts of starting a business is when the sale sales start coming in. That makes sense. If your business is looking to start selling online. Shopify has everything you need to create your online store. Shopify says they're the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world. And they say 10% of all E commerce in the US from those household names like Mattel and Gymshark to newer brands with hundreds of ready to use templates. Shopify says Shopify can help you build a beautiful online store to match your brand's style. They say their platform is packed with those AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines and even enhance your product photography. Best of all, according to Shopify, Shopify can help your business with world class expertise in everything from managing your inventory to international shipping to processing returns and so much more. If you want to see fewer carts being abandoned, it's time for you to head over to Shopify. Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start start selling today at shopify.com explained. Go to shopify.com explained. That's shopify.com explained.

[Framer/Rippling Sponsor]

Support for today's show comes from Framer. What can your website do? Well, if you create it with Framer, it can do a whole lot and look good while doing it. Framer is a full feature design tool. You can get access to unlimited projects, unlimited pages, unlimited collaborators and everything you need to design. Framer says they've already built the fastest way to publish beautiful production ready websites and it's now redefining design for the web with the recent launch of Design Pages, a free canvas based design tool. Design Pages lets you design more than just websites. You can create social assets, campaign visuals, icons and site resources directly in Framer. It's a true all in one design platform. Framer is where ideas go live, start to finish, ready to design, iterate and publish all in one tool. You can start creating for [e-mail] design and use the code Explain for a free month of framer pro. That's framer.com design and use promo code explain framer.com design promo code explain Rules and restrictions may apply.

Support for today's show comes from Rippling. Is your business paying for 20 tools to do the job of one? It's time to replace your stitched together tech stack with one platform for all your departments with Rippling. Rippling is a unified platform for global hr, payroll, IT and finance. They say they've helped millions replace their mess of cobble together tools with one system designed to give leaders clarity, speed and control. By uniting your employees, teams and departments in one system, Rippling says they can remove the bottlenecks, busy work and silos your software might have created. Automated perfectly in sync and seriously simple to use. With Rippling you can run your entire hr, IT and finance operations together or pick and choose the products that best fill the gaps in your software stack. And right now you can get six months free. When you go to rippling.com explain. Learn more at R I P P L-I-N-G.com explained. That's rippling.com explained. For six months free terms and conditions apply.

[Ian Millhiser]

Oh yay. Oh yay. Oh yay.

[Noel King]

Oh yay.

[Ian Millhiser]

This is Today Explained.

[Noel King]

I'm Noel King with Noah Rosenblum. He's a legal historian at NYU Law School. All right, Noah, you were one of a number of historians who sent in amicus briefs to the court on Trump v. Slaughter. Why is that? What is your position here?

[Noah Rosenblum]

The big question in Trump v. Slaughter is whether this old case called Humphreys Executor should be overruled. I work on the legal history of the 1930s and so that's a case that I know a little bit about.

So the case has its origins in this conflict between Franklin Roosevelt, the New Deal President of the United States, and one of the commissioners for the Federal Trade Commission. This guy, Commissioner Humphries Humphreys had been appointed by the Republicans. He'd actually been reappointed to a term by the time Roosevelt got there. And there was a real difference of policy opinion between what Roosevelt wanted to do with the FTC and what Humphreys understood his responsibilities as a commissioner to entail.

[Noel King]

What was the disagreement?

[Noah Rosenblum]

At its core, it was a fight over how the government should relate to what Roosevelt would call the malefactors of great wealth. Yeah, famously, when Franklin Roosevelt is running for reelection in 19, I think it's 36, he gives this speech where he.

[Ian Millhiser]

Says, we know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.

[Noah Rosenblum]

So when Roosevelt comes in, a key part of his agenda is cleaning up these financial improprieties. People might remember, deep in the recesses of their mind from US history, the Pecora hearings in which these bankers and other corporate executives are dragged in front of Congress for their misdeeds. That's just one part of this broader remaking of America's financial system that Roosevelt is a, is a key part of. So of course, as a result of the New Dealers, we get the securities and Exchange act, which requires companies to file these prospectuses and disclose things about how they're actually run. We get the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to protect retail banking and Roosevelt wants to use the Federal Trade Commission to go after some of these corporate malefactors to take on some of these consolidations and really bring the kind of, you know, middle class economic populism that is characteristic of the New Deal to federal policy.

[Noel King]

Okay, so FDR wants to fire Mr. Humphries. Why? Was Mr. Humphreys like, oh, I actually love the rich and complicated holding companies.

[Noah Rosenblum]

I am not sure if Humphrey is on the record saying that he loves the rich, but he certainly hates the New Deal.

[Noel King]

Okay.

[Noah Rosenblum]

Humphrey really embodies the pre New Deal conservative tradition. So as I mentioned before, he's put on the court by the Republican Party that's dominant in the 1920s. Humphrey embodies the older laissez faire tradition that had dominated American conservative politics before Roosevelt. He, to put it mildly, just does not want to use the FTC to realize the progressive policy goals that are at the core of Roosevelt's electoral promise.

[Noel King]

Okay, so we understand why FDR wants him out. It goes before the Supreme Court, as it has done again in 2025, and the Supreme Court says what? Exactly.

[Noah Rosenblum]

So even though there was a statute on the books that made it clear that Roosevelt could not remove commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission, the Roosevelt administration was optimistic that it would be able to fire Humphrey anyway. And that has to do with this earlier case from 1926 called Meyers, in which the Supreme Court had held that the Senate could not interpose itself in the President's removal of purely executive officers. And so Roosevelt, I think, had good reason to think he was going to win that case. It thus came as a tremendous surprise when the Court unanimously went against the Roosevelt administration and said, actually, no, the FTC is different from the underlying officer who was at issue in the Myers case. Postman. And in this case, you can have a statute that limits the President's ability to remove.

[Noel King]

All right, and so there we sit. Until when? When does someone seriously challenge Humphrey's executor?

[Noah Rosenblum]

It remains in place basically unchallenged for the next 90 years. There's a moment in the 1980s when the Reagan administration pushes back on it and there's a big case, Morrison v. Olson, featuring a young Justice Scalia. I know, anticipating what's gonna come, he writes an opinion that says the Constitution.

[Ian Millhiser]

Did not leave the President's powers at our mercy. It says that the executive power, not some executive power, shall be vested in a President of the United States, not.

[Noah Rosenblum]

A President of the United States and others. His position is unbelievably fringe. So when Scalia writes that opinion in Morrison v. Olson, it's a solo dissent. And William Rehnquist, the conservative chief judge of the court.

[Ian Millhiser]

No lefties.

[Noah Rosenblum]

He writes in the opinion for the majority that my brother Scalia is trying to put more weight than the words will bear so that's a gentlemanly way of saying Scalia, you're out of your mind. So really there are these momentary challenges, but it's not until the Roberts court, and really until the Roberts court consolidates its conservative majority that we see a full on challenge to Humphreys.

[Noel King]

And does that bring us to the present day?

[Noah Rosenblum]

More or less. There's that decision in 2020 called Sale a law which had to do with the single headed leader of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Then rising conservative judge named Brett Kavanaugh came up with a new theory in which he said, you know, it's okay to have independence for multi member agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, but when an agency has a single person at its head, well then it would be unconstitutional for that person to serve independent of the President because it would be just too much of an interference with presidential power. And I remember reading that opinion just thinking to myself, God, this theory, it's kind of, kind of wild, but there's no foundation for it in the Constitution. He just like kind of came up with it. And judges occasionally do that, but that's not often how you make constitutional law. And then the case goes up to the Supreme Court. And John Roberts, who of course had served alongside Kavanaugh on the D.C. circuit, took Kavanaugh's theory and wrote it into law. And so in say the law, you saw this direct attack in which the logic of Humphreys was totally transformed.

[Noel King]

All right, so Humphreys has set a very long precedent here. We learned in the first half of the show from Ian Millhiser that the Supreme Court looks poised to overturn Humphreys. And if it does, what happens? What are the stakes here?

[Noah Rosenblum]

Well, so this is why I filed an amicus brief on behalf of Slaughter saying that I don't think the court should overrule Humphreys because depending on if and how it overrules Humphreys, it could be making both a terrible mistake as a matter of jurisprudence and history and creating totally intractable problems for itself.

So there are lots of things the government does where just as a matter of common sense, you want some independence between the person making the decision on behalf of the government and the particular political will of the President. One example I sometimes use with my students, I'm from New York, you know, you don't want the next mayor or you don't want whether the sewer system works to turn on what the mayor's political preferences are. And it's totally fair to build a sewer system that works whether the mayor is Eric Adams or whether the mayor is Zoram Mamdani think analogously about the government, right? Do we want our Social Security benefits turning on whether the President happens to be a Democrat or a Republican? Every time you go to a government bureau, do you want to have to wait for the person who makes the decision to say hold on, I got to go take a phone call from the White House to figure out how to rule on your application? Because if I, if I go the wrong way, I'm going to get fired. That's telephone justice. That's what the Soviets do. That's not what the United States does. But the independence of all of those officers hinges in a jurisprudential sense on the Humphreys executor decision. And so if you throw it out, well then either you have to embrace this strong presidentialist vision which actually like I said has these sort of Soviet elements in it, or you have to come up with a different way of explaining where, when and why certain government actions can be independent of the President. And we have a hundred year tradition of doing that and call me a humble historian, but I think there's a lot to be learned from that tradition and we should be careful before we throw it out.

[Noel King]

Noah Rosenblum amicus briefer Historian NYU Law Ariana Espuru and Danielle Hewitt produced today's show Laura Bullard and Kelly Wessinger check the facts Patrick Boyd and David Tadashore engineered do know that Estad and I recently conversated on Vox's brand new Patreon. We talked about our favorite stories of 2025 the stories we're looking at ahead in the new year we answered some of your questions. If you join Vox on Patreon you get exclusive access to the full conversating. You'll also unlock members only video series other perks and you're going to be supporting the work we do at Today Explained if you're a VOX member you already have access to Patreon so well done you. If not you can go to patreon.com Vox to join I'm Noel King it's Today Explained.