#chief-justice-roberts — Public Fediverse posts

https://www.europesays.com/iran/102663/ CIA Says Iran Can Outlast U.S. Blockade On Strait Of Hormuz For Months: Report #ChiefJusticeRoberts #EconomicConsequences #Hormuz #Iran #NavalBlockade #StraitOfHormuz

https://www.europesays.com/people/22657/ Roberts says personal criticism of judges dangerous, has ‘got to stop’ #ChiefJusticeRoberts #JohnRoberts #WhatDidRobertsSayAboutTrump

https://www.europesays.com/people/22523/ Roberts says personal criticism of judges dangerous, has ‘got to stop’ #ChiefJusticeRoberts #JohnRoberts #WhatDidRobertsSayAboutTrump

https://www.europesays.com/people/21788/ Roberts says personal criticism of judges dangerous, has ‘got to stop’ #ChiefJusticeRoberts #JohnRoberts #WhatDidRobertsSayAboutTrump

https://www.europesays.com/people/6275/ Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order #14thAmendment #BirthrightCitizenship #CeciliaWang #ChiefJusticeRoberts #citizenship #DC #DonaldTrump #DredScott #ElenaKagan #Immigration #JohnRoberts #JohnSauer #Justices #NeilGorsuch #POTUS #scotus #SolicitorGeneral #SupremeCourt #washington

https://www.europesays.com/people/5984/ Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order #14thAmendment #BirthrightCitizenship #CeciliaWang #ChiefJusticeRoberts #citizenship #DC #DonaldTrump #DredScott #ElenaKagan #Immigration #JohnRoberts #JohnSauer #Justices #NeilGorsuch #POTUS #scotus #SolicitorGeneral #SupremeCourt #washington

https://www.europesays.com/people/5492/ Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order #14thAmendment #BirthrightCitizenship #CeciliaWang #ChiefJusticeRoberts #citizenship #DC #DonaldTrump #DredScott #ElenaKagan #Immigration #JohnRoberts #JohnSauer #Justices #NeilGorsuch #POTUS #scotus #SolicitorGeneral #SupremeCourt #washington

https://www.europesays.com/people/3429/ Supreme Court may uphold birthright citizenship, but issue isn’t going away #BirthTourism #BirthrightCitizenship #ChiefJusticeRoberts #citizenship #ExecutiveOrder #IllegalImmigration #JohnRoberts #PresidentTrump #SolicitorGeneralJohnSauer #SupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary

By Joyce Vance, Jan 02, 2026

As is the custom, on the last day of the year, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a report on the state of the federal judiciary. Formally titled “2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” it starts with this picture.

I don’t mean to nitpick, or maybe I do. Either way, it’s an odd choice. A fancy, empty room. History, devoid of humanity.

I’m sympathetic to the position the Chief Justice is in. It’s not his job to play politics, and restraint is usually the general order of business. But the past year has not been a normal one. The Chief Justice’s year-end report treats it as though it has been.

The past decade has made it clear that our institutions are only as strong as the people in them. That makes this photo a startling choice for a report about the judiciary, albeit likely unintentional. But it’s a marker for what has become increasingly clear: that the majority on this Court has failed to show up in a moment when their institutional voice is desperately needed. The Court has been either unwilling or incapable of meeting the challenge to democracy that Donald Trump poses.

The Court has important cases to decide over the next few months. The National Guard ruling over the holiday was a bright spot where the Court temporarily told Trump no. But there are a number of highly significant cases on presidential powers, immigration, gerrymandering and voting rights, and more, still to come this term.

The Chief Justice’s report takes the form of an essay about American history, followed by statistics about the Court and its work. You can read the full report here.

Civil cases where the administration is a defendant were up a whopping 9% in 2025, according to the Chief Justice.

Roberts begins with the story of Thomas Paine and the publication of Common Sense (interestingly enough, a book I delved into at some length in my book Giving Up Is Unforgivable). He writes, “Paine advanced several key points. A government’s purpose is to serve the people. The colonists should view themselves as a distinctive people—Americans, not British subjects. The colonies had reached ‘that peculiar time which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a government.’ And, in view of the foregoing propositions, as an independent nation, the colonists would ‘have it in our power to begin the world over again.’”

This explains Roberts’ choice of illustration—the empty room is the Assembly Room at Independence Hall, the place where the Founding Fathers met and approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Roberts spends some time, without any comment about what it might mean, on the notion of patriotism and treason: “The brave patriots who crafted and approved the definitive statement of American independence pledged to support each other and their new nation with ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.’ They understood that the British would view their words and actions as treason. As Franklin reportedly warned, ‘[W]e must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.’” It’s a quote that, absent any context or explanation, can mean all things to all people. A mark of how carefully this Chief Justice continues to navigate the political moment in a survival-oriented fashion, rather than taking a stand and doing something to keep the Republic.

He goes on to heap praise on the sentence in the Declaration of Independence’s preamble that he says, “articulates the theory of American government in a single passage that has been hailed as ‘the greatest sentence ever crafted by human hand.’” “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Chief Justice writes that this sentence, “enunciated the American creed, a national mission statement, even though it quite obviously captured an ideal rather than a reality, given that the vast majority of the 56 signers of the Declaration (even Franklin) enslaved other humans at some point in their lives.”

Then, the Chief Justice goes down a legal rabbit hole, discussing how many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, many of whom went on to become judges, including Supreme Court Justices. Some of them turned out to be of questionable character, like James Wilson, who spent much of his life trying to evade his debtors. Roberts dwells on Justice Samuel Chase, whose impeachment I also discuss in my book. The Chief Justice makes the same point that I do: the complaints against Chase involved political disagreement with his judicial decisions. But he was not convicted on the articles of impeachment, because disagreeing with a judge’s decisions isn’t a basis for removal from office. The decision forms the basis of the judiciary’s independence and ability to rule on the cases before them based on the facts and the law, without fear of political interference. Again, Roberts recites the incident without drawing any conclusions, perhaps leaving it to judges across the country to infer that he supports them. But at a time when the country needed a resounding defense of judicial independence in the face of criticism by this administration, it simply didn’t get it from the Chief Justice. The moment requires something more than bland understatement.

The Chief Justice touched on some of the most important issues the judiciary faces today, without ever getting to the point. Reading the report, you wouldn’t know that the judiciary has been, quite frankly, under attack by this president. He writes as though he bears no responsibility for handing over unprecedented power to the president, to say nothing of the delay and ultimate grant of immunity from criminal prosecution that facilitated Trump’s return to office. Roberts acknowledges none of that. Instead, he lauds judicial independence, without ever saying that it’s only necessary for him to do so because the president and his minions are challenging judges whose decisions they dislike, as though that’s how this is supposed to work. “The Declaration charged that George III ‘has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.’ The Constitution corrected this flaw, granting life tenure and salary protection to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well.”

The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary by Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-chief-justices-report-on-the

Civil Discourse – The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary

By Joyce Vance, Jan 02, 2026

As is the custom, on the last day of the year, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a report on the state of the federal judiciary. Formally titled “2025 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary,” it starts with this picture.

I don’t mean to nitpick, or maybe I do. Either way, it’s an odd choice. A fancy, empty room. History, devoid of humanity.

I’m sympathetic to the position the Chief Justice is in. It’s not his job to play politics, and restraint is usually the general order of business. But the past year has not been a normal one. The Chief Justice’s year-end report treats it as though it has been.

The past decade has made it clear that our institutions are only as strong as the people in them. That makes this photo a startling choice for a report about the judiciary, albeit likely unintentional. But it’s a marker for what has become increasingly clear: that the majority on this Court has failed to show up in a moment when their institutional voice is desperately needed. The Court has been either unwilling or incapable of meeting the challenge to democracy that Donald Trump poses.

The Court has important cases to decide over the next few months. The National Guard ruling over the holiday was a bright spot where the Court temporarily told Trump no. But there are a number of highly significant cases on presidential powers, immigration, gerrymandering and voting rights, and more, still to come this term.

The Chief Justice’s report takes the form of an essay about American history, followed by statistics about the Court and its work. You can read the full report here.

Civil cases where the administration is a defendant were up a whopping 9% in 2025, according to the Chief Justice.

Roberts begins with the story of Thomas Paine and the publication of Common Sense (interestingly enough, a book I delved into at some length in my book Giving Up Is Unforgivable). He writes, “Paine advanced several key points. A government’s purpose is to serve the people. The colonists should view themselves as a distinctive people—Americans, not British subjects. The colonies had reached ‘that peculiar time which never happens to a nation but once, viz., the time of forming itself into a government.’ And, in view of the foregoing propositions, as an independent nation, the colonists would ‘have it in our power to begin the world over again.’”

This explains Roberts’ choice of illustration—the empty room is the Assembly Room at Independence Hall, the place where the Founding Fathers met and approved the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.

Roberts spends some time, without any comment about what it might mean, on the notion of patriotism and treason: “The brave patriots who crafted and approved the definitive statement of American independence pledged to support each other and their new nation with ‘our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.’ They understood that the British would view their words and actions as treason. As Franklin reportedly warned, ‘[W]e must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.’” It’s a quote that, absent any context or explanation, can mean all things to all people. A mark of how carefully this Chief Justice continues to navigate the political moment in a survival-oriented fashion, rather than taking a stand and doing something to keep the Republic.

He goes on to heap praise on the sentence in the Declaration of Independence’s preamble that he says, “articulates the theory of American government in a single passage that has been hailed as ‘the greatest sentence ever crafted by human hand.’” “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Chief Justice writes that this sentence, “enunciated the American creed, a national mission statement, even though it quite obviously captured an ideal rather than a reality, given that the vast majority of the 56 signers of the Declaration (even Franklin) enslaved other humans at some point in their lives.”

Then, the Chief Justice goes down a legal rabbit hole, discussing how many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers, many of whom went on to become judges, including Supreme Court Justices. Some of them turned out to be of questionable character, like James Wilson, who spent much of his life trying to evade his debtors. Roberts dwells on Justice Samuel Chase, whose impeachment I also discuss in my book. The Chief Justice makes the same point that I do: the complaints against Chase involved political disagreement with his judicial decisions. But he was not convicted on the articles of impeachment, because disagreeing with a judge’s decisions isn’t a basis for removal from office. The decision forms the basis of the judiciary’s independence and ability to rule on the cases before them based on the facts and the law, without fear of political interference. Again, Roberts recites the incident without drawing any conclusions, perhaps leaving it to judges across the country to infer that he supports them. But at a time when the country needed a resounding defense of judicial independence in the face of criticism by this administration, it simply didn’t get it from the Chief Justice. The moment requires something more than bland understatement.

The Chief Justice touched on some of the most important issues the judiciary faces today, without ever getting to the point. Reading the report, you wouldn’t know that the judiciary has been, quite frankly, under attack by this president. He writes as though he bears no responsibility for handing over unprecedented power to the president, to say nothing of the delay and ultimate grant of immunity from criminal prosecution that facilitated Trump’s return to office. Roberts acknowledges none of that. Instead, he lauds judicial independence, without ever saying that it’s only necessary for him to do so because the president and his minions are challenging judges whose decisions they dislike, as though that’s how this is supposed to work. “The Declaration charged that George III ‘has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.’ The Constitution corrected this flaw, granting life tenure and salary protection to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well.”

The Chief Justice’s Report on the State of the Judiciary by Joyce Vance

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/the-chief-justices-report-on-the

The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

Politics

The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions

By David G. Savage, Staff Writer Follow. Jan. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

• For much of the year, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump.
• The court has been criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-23/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-chicago – See more at the above link.

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago, Dec. 23, 2025

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

Politics

The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions

By David G. Savage, Staff Writer Follow. Jan. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

• For much of the year, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump.
• The court has been criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-23/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-chicago – See more at the above link.

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago, Dec. 23, 2025

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

Politics

The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions

By David G. Savage, Staff Writer Follow. Jan. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

• For much of the year, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump.
• The court has been criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-23/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-chicago – See more at the above link.

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago, Dec. 23, 2025

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

Politics

The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions

By David G. Savage, Staff Writer Follow. Jan. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

• For much of the year, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump.
• The court has been criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-23/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-chicago – See more at the above link.

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago, Dec. 23, 2025

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

Politics

The Supreme Court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with key exceptions

By David G. Savage, Staff Writer Follow. Jan. 1, 2026 3 AM PT

• For much of the year, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the five other conservatives were in the majority ruling for Trump.
• The court has been criticized for handing down temporary unsigned orders with little or no explanation.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., ended the first year of President Trump’s second term with a record of rulings that gave him much broader power to control the federal government.

In a series of fast-track decisions, the justices granted emergency appeals and set aside rulings from district judges who blocked Trump’s orders from taking effect.

With the court’s approval, the administration dismissed thousands of federal employees, cut funding for education and health research grants, dismantled the agency that funds foreign aid and cleared the way for the U.S. military to reject transgender troops.

But the court also put two important checks on the president’s power.

In April, the court twice ruled — including in a post-midnight order — that the Trump administration could not secretly whisk immigrants out of the country without giving them a hearing before a judge.

Upon taking office, Trump claimed migrants who were alleged to belong to “foreign terrorist” gangs could be arrested as “enemy aliens” and flown secretly to a prison in El Salvador.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-23/supreme-court-trump-national-guard-chicago – See more at the above link.

Politics

Supreme Court rules against Trump, bars National Guard deployment in Chicago, Dec. 23, 2025

Roberts and the court blocked such secret deportations and said the 5th Amendment entitles immigrants, like citizens, a right to “due process of law.” Many of the arrested men had no criminal records and said they never belonged to a criminal gang.
Those who face deportation “are entitled to notice and opportunity to challenge their removal,” the justices said in Trump vs. J.G.G.

They also required the government to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador. He is now back in Maryland with his wife, but may face further criminal charges or efforts to deport him.

And last week, Roberts and the court barred Trump from deploying the National Guard in Chicago to enforce the immigration laws.

Trump had claimed he had the power to defy state governors and deploy the Guard troops in Los Angeles, Portland, Ore., Chicago and other Democratic-led states and cities.

The Supreme Court disagreed over dissents from conservative Justices Samuel A. Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: The Roberts court broadly expanded Trump’s power in 2025, with these key exceptions – Los Angeles Times

#ChiefJusticeRoberts is really a stupid bastard..
#RuleOfLaw #PedoPresident #FuckedCountry

#ChiefJusticeRoberts is really a stupid bastard..
#RuleOfLaw #PedoPresident #FuckedCountry

#ChiefJusticeRoberts is really a stupid bastard..
#RuleOfLaw #PedoPresident #FuckedCountry

#ChiefJusticeRoberts is really a stupid bastard..
#RuleOfLaw #PedoPresident #FuckedCountry

#ChiefJusticeRoberts is really a stupid bastard..
#RuleOfLaw #PedoPresident #FuckedCountry

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Civil Discourse – Monday in Court and Beyond – Joyce Vance

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

Monday in Court and Beyond

By Joyce Vance, Dec 08, 2025

Your paid subscription makes Civil Discourse possible—independent, informed analysis in a moment when noise can drown out reason. Join a community that refuses to give up on democracy—or on understanding it. –Joyce Vance

Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter earlier this year. She sued.

In a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court held that Congress could put limits on the president’s authority to remove certain executive branch officials. That longstanding precedent has been on a collision course with Donald Trump’s quest for maximal power for as long as he’s been in office. Today, a Court that has been very sympathetic to Trump heard argument in Slaughter’s case.

The type of executive branch positions at stake are appointments to high-ranking positions in quasi-independent federal agencies like the FTC and others, including the Federal Reserve. The top line question is whether presidents can fire them in the absence of misconduct. We discussed the backstory to Humphrey’s Executor here, back in March. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired an FTC Commissioner, writing to him that “your mind and my mind [don’t] go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission.” The Court held that Congress intended to restrict a president’s power of removal to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, and that Roosevelt couldn’t dismiss Humphrey simply because they were of different minds on policy.

That precedent is about as on-point as they come. It suggests that Slaughter, who had done nothing wrong, should win her case. She was advised of her termination in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”

But our tea leaf reading at the start of the term, which concluded that the Court would weigh in for Trump, appears to have been on target. We based that analysis on the fact that the Court declined to stay Slaughter’s dismissal from the FTC until it could hear the case. If there had been a majority, or something close to it, inclined to follow Humphrey’s Executor and rein Trump in, the Court would have prevented the firing from taking effect until it could hear the case. The fact that they allowed her dismissal to take effect implied the Court was prepared to undo the precedent that would have prohibited it. Oral argument bore out that conclusion.

Justice Kagan went straight to the heart of the matter when Solicitor General John Sauer argued the government’s case. She pointed out that “the central proposition of your brief” was that the Vesting Clause of the Constitution gives all of the executive power to the president. “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little difficult to see how you stop,” Justice Kagan said. Sauer talked over her and around her, but never disagreed. The government’s position, even though it didn’t go this far today, is that everything that happens in the executive branch is at the president’s pleasure. Everything. That could include matters like who DOJ indicts, what businesses the EPA regulates, and all sorts of individualized decisions that are currently made by people with expertise, guided by long-standing practices and ethical constraints.

“To that point, when Justice Kagan asked whether a decision against Slaughter would apply to other similarly situated agencies, Sauer ducked. He told her the Court could just “reserve” making a decision on other agencies because those cases were not in front of the Court today. Justice Kagan responded that “logic has consequences,” and that even if the Court dropped a footnote saying it wasn’t deciding other cases as Sauer suggested, it would just be a dodge; it wouldn’t mean anything for future cases, where the government would be free to argue for an unprecedented level of control in the hands of the president, using Slaughter as support, if the Court decides it in the manner the government requested.” Joyce Vance’s Quote…

Justice Sotomayor said to Sauer, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” Justice Alito invited Sauer to respond. “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.” Justice Sotomayor ultimately responded, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” There was silence for a moment. Then Sauer hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

We don’t know precisely how the Court will rule, but the Chief Justice tipped his hand a bit, saying “the precedent” had “nothing to do with what the FTC looks like today,” and claiming that the FTC back then was different, and “had very little, if any executive power,” suggesting different rules might apply today for an agency that had become more powerful. It’s the sophistic kind of reasoning we have seen before when the Roberts Court twists itself into pretzel logic so that it can reverse longstanding precedent—while pretending it is doing nothing of the sort.

A decision in this case is likely to come at the end of the term, late next June or the first week in July, although it could come at any time. It is likely to be one of the most consequential of this term.

A lot more happened today that is worthy of our attention. But because there is so much of it, instead of trying to cover it all, I’ll flag some of the most important developments here, and you can read further on any of them that interest you. We will take them up in more detail as they develop.

• ProPublica, widely regarded as a highly credible source of independent investigative journalism (they broke the story on Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito accepting vacation travels and other favors from conservative power players) reported today that some of Trump’s mortgages match his description of mortgage fraud, according to records they reviewed. While living in New York, he claimed two 1993 real estate purchases made within two months of each other in Florida would both become his principal residence. The report says: “The Trump administration has argued that Fed board member Lisa Cook may have committed mortgage fraud by declaring more than one primary residence on her loans. We found Trump once did the very thing he called ‘deceitful and potentially criminal.’” Trump has accused multiple political adversaries of mortgage fraud for claiming more than one primary residence, and that appears to be the rationale behind federal criminal investigations into New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Senator Adam Schiff, and California Representative Eric Swalwell, and others, although there are at best flimsy facts to support the allegations.
• Twelve former FBI agents sued Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, along with others, alleging “unlawful retaliation” because they were fired for kneeling in response to protests in Washington, D.C., after George Floyd’s murder. The lawsuit is based on First Amendment violations and also points out the wisdom of the plaintiffs’ decision to kneel with the crowd: “As a result of their tactical decision to kneel, the mass of people moved on without escalating to violence.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Monday in Court and Beyond

#1935 #ChiefJusticeRoberts #CivilDiscourse #December82025 #DOJ #FBIAgents #FederalTradeCommission #FiredForKneeling #FTCCommissioner #HumphreySExecutor #JohnSauer #JoyceVance #JusticeAlito #JusticeKagan #JusticeSotomayor #MortgageFraudByTrump #ProPublica #RebeccaSlaughter #SCOTUS #USSupremeCourt

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power – CNN Politics

Politics 9 min read

Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power

By Joan Biskupic, CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Dec 5, 2025 See all topics

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan are well matched, rhetorically forceful opposites. And they have been clashing for more than a decade over an increasingly relevant question of presidential power: How easy should it be for the president to fire the heads of independent agencies?

That issue, to be aired at the Supreme Court on Monday, has grown more salient as President Donald Trump has attempted to remove multiple officials, including at the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board and Federal Reserve.

Their first faceoff occurred in 2009 before Kagan had even joined the court, as she was serving as US solicitor general, standing in the well of the courtroom, with Roberts looking down from the center chair. They tangled over a 1935 precedent that protects agency independence and that now hangs in the balance, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Since his days as a young lawyer in the Ronald Reagan administration, Roberts has argued for vast executive power, including the authority to fire individuals who lead administrative agencies. “Without such power,” Roberts wrote in the 2009 dispute over a corporate auditing board, “the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else.”

Kagan, in contrast, believes the constitutional separation of powers allows Congress to establish and safeguard certain areas of administrative independence. And she has relied on Supreme Court rulings, including the 1935 milestone, that have allowed Congress to prevent the president from removing independent administrators without sufficient grounds.

Monday’s case was brought by former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who received a March 18 email from Trump saying her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” (Under the law governing the FTC, commissioners can be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”)

The court’s ruling will extend far beyond Slaughter and the FTC and have vast consequences for specialized regulation in an array of financial, environmental and public safety spheres.

In an early phase of Slaughter’s lawsuit, in September, the Roberts majority reversed a lower court order that would have allowed Slaughter to stay in her post. The move was consistent with Roberts’ opinions that have steadily eroded the reach of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and signaled he considers it a dead letter.

Related article Supreme Court flicks at First Amendment concerns with state’s subpoena of faith-based pregnancy centers

“The majority may be raring to take that action,” Kagan observed as she dissented from that September action. “But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”

More broadly, the eventual ruling could build on other decisions providing Trump more power as he carries out his second term agenda. Last year, Roberts and his fellow conservatives granted Trump substantial immunity from prosecution as it expanded the concept of a president’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. Then, earlier this year, the court freed the administration from lower-court nationwide orders against his various policy initiatives.

These decisions have dissolved constraints on the president, and if the court were to reverse the 1935 case, the president would be further unburdened by congressional legislation barring him from removing agency officials without sufficient grounds.

Vanderbilt University political science professor John Dearborn, who has studied the Reagan era development of a “unitary executive theory” and Roberts’ writings, told CNN, “He’s had these kinds of ideas for a long time, that the only way that agencies are accountable is if the president has the power to fire people.”

‘I didn’t say anything bad about Humphrey’s Executor’

Before joining the bench, Roberts and Kagan were first-rate oral advocates with their own, respective, steady and tenacious styles. Roberts served as a deputy US solicitor general during the George H.W. Bush administrations and then appeared frequently at the court in private practice. He argued a total 39 cases before the high court.

Kagan, who hadn’t previously argued a case at the high court, was named US solicitor general in 2009 by President Barack Obama. She went on to argue six cases, including the presidential-removal controversy, before Obama nominated her to the bench in 2010 to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Roberts and Kagan prepare for another showdown on executive power | CNN Politics

#ChiefJusticeRoberts #CNN #CNNPolitics #Conservative #ExecutiveBranch #ExecutivePower #IndependentAdministrators #JusticeKagan #Liberal #President #RemoveOfficials #Showdown #SufficientGrounds #USCongress #USPresident

#ChiefJusticeRoberts fires back against Trump and reminds him that the #SupremeCourt 's role is to check the excesses of an out of control Presidency, in a new interview. @mspopok.bsky.social takes a closer look at the Roberts Court who created the #TrumpFrankenstein. youtu.be/97SnICUyukA?...

Chief Justice MAKES RARE State...

#ChiefJusticeRoberts fires back against Trump and reminds him that the #SupremeCourt 's role is to check the excesses of an out of control Presidency, in a new interview. @mspopok.bsky.social takes a closer look at the Roberts Court who created the #TrumpFrankenstein. youtu.be/97SnICUyukA?...

Chief Justice MAKES RARE State...

#ChiefJusticeRoberts fires back against Trump and reminds him that the #SupremeCourt 's role is to check the excesses of an out of control Presidency, in a new interview. @mspopok.bsky.social takes a closer look at the Roberts Court who created the #TrumpFrankenstein. youtu.be/97SnICUyukA?...

Chief Justice MAKES RARE State...

#ChiefJusticeRoberts fires back against Trump and reminds him that the #SupremeCourt 's role is to check the excesses of an out of control Presidency, in a new interview. @mspopok.bsky.social takes a closer look at the Roberts Court who created the #TrumpFrankenstein. youtu.be/97SnICUyukA?...

Chief Justice MAKES RARE State...

#ChiefJusticeRoberts fires back against Trump and reminds him that the #SupremeCourt 's role is to check the excesses of an out of control Presidency, in a new interview. @mspopok.bsky.social takes a closer look at the Roberts Court who created the #TrumpFrankenstein. youtu.be/97SnICUyukA?...

Chief Justice MAKES RARE State...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/07/chief-justice-roberts-judicial-independence-buffalo/

The balance of power between the three, coequal branches of government “doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” #ChiefJusticeRoberts said during a wide-ranging, lively interview. The job of judges, he added, “is obviously to decide cases, but — in the course of that — check the excesses of #Congress or the #executive, and that does require a degree of independence.”

#SCOTUS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/07/chief-justice-roberts-judicial-independence-buffalo/

The balance of power between the three, coequal branches of government “doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” #ChiefJusticeRoberts said during a wide-ranging, lively interview. The job of judges, he added, “is obviously to decide cases, but — in the course of that — check the excesses of #Congress or the #executive, and that does require a degree of independence.”

#SCOTUS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/07/chief-justice-roberts-judicial-independence-buffalo/

The balance of power between the three, coequal branches of government “doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” #ChiefJusticeRoberts said during a wide-ranging, lively interview. The job of judges, he added, “is obviously to decide cases, but — in the course of that — check the excesses of #Congress or the #executive, and that does require a degree of independence.”

#SCOTUS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/07/chief-justice-roberts-judicial-independence-buffalo/

The balance of power between the three, coequal branches of government “doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” #ChiefJusticeRoberts said during a wide-ranging, lively interview. The job of judges, he added, “is obviously to decide cases, but — in the course of that — check the excesses of #Congress or the #executive, and that does require a degree of independence.”

#SCOTUS

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/05/07/chief-justice-roberts-judicial-independence-buffalo/

The balance of power between the three, coequal branches of government “doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” #ChiefJusticeRoberts said during a wide-ranging, lively interview. The job of judges, he added, “is obviously to decide cases, but — in the course of that — check the excesses of #Congress or the #executive, and that does require a degree of independence.”

#SCOTUS

@marcelias.bsky.social discusses the lawsuit wormtongue #StephenMiller has filed against #ChiefJusticeRoberts of the #SupremeCourt stating that the SCOTUS "belongs to the executive branch" aka the #Whitehouse, not Trump's, YOUR Whitehouse with @briantylercohen.bsky.social youtu.be/mvCBNaVuW8Q?...

Trump adviser’s group SUES THE...

@marcelias.bsky.social discusses the lawsuit wormtongue #StephenMiller has filed against #ChiefJusticeRoberts of the #SupremeCourt stating that the SCOTUS "belongs to the executive branch" aka the #Whitehouse, not Trump's, YOUR Whitehouse with @briantylercohen.bsky.social youtu.be/mvCBNaVuW8Q?...

Trump adviser’s group SUES THE...

@marcelias.bsky.social discusses the lawsuit wormtongue #StephenMiller has filed against #ChiefJusticeRoberts of the #SupremeCourt stating that the SCOTUS "belongs to the executive branch" aka the #Whitehouse, not Trump's, YOUR Whitehouse with @briantylercohen.bsky.social youtu.be/mvCBNaVuW8Q?...

Trump adviser’s group SUES THE...

@marcelias.bsky.social discusses the lawsuit wormtongue #StephenMiller has filed against #ChiefJusticeRoberts of the #SupremeCourt stating that the SCOTUS "belongs to the executive branch" aka the #Whitehouse, not Trump's, YOUR Whitehouse with @briantylercohen.bsky.social youtu.be/mvCBNaVuW8Q?...

Trump adviser’s group SUES THE...

@marcelias.bsky.social discusses the lawsuit wormtongue #StephenMiller has filed against #ChiefJusticeRoberts of the #SupremeCourt stating that the SCOTUS "belongs to the executive branch" aka the #Whitehouse, not Trump's, YOUR Whitehouse with @briantylercohen.bsky.social youtu.be/mvCBNaVuW8Q?...

Trump adviser’s group SUES THE...

The SCOTUS led by #ChiefJusticeRoberts just trolled Trump and his DOJ by giving a standing ovation in the Courtroom to a DOJ lawyer that represents the finest in attorney ethics and professionalism, a rare thing in todays Trump DOJ after he quit after his 160th oral argument youtu.be/bZ6Xk8XKzwk?...

Trump TROLLED by SCOTUS with S...

The SCOTUS led by #ChiefJusticeRoberts just trolled Trump and his DOJ by giving a standing ovation in the Courtroom to a DOJ lawyer that represents the finest in attorney ethics and professionalism, a rare thing in todays Trump DOJ after he quit after his 160th oral argument youtu.be/bZ6Xk8XKzwk?...

Trump TROLLED by SCOTUS with S...

My reply to #ChiefJusticeRoberts annual review is this: people will follow the court's rulings when they are based upon law. Unfortunately, we have courts, including the #SupremeCourt, that now issue rulings based upon political doctrine.

My reply to #ChiefJusticeRoberts annual review is this: people will follow the court's rulings when they are based upon law. Unfortunately, we have courts, including the #SupremeCourt, that now issue rulings based upon political doctrine.

My reply to #ChiefJusticeRoberts annual review is this: people will follow the court's rulings when they are based upon law. Unfortunately, we have courts, including the #SupremeCourt, that now issue rulings based upon political doctrine.

My reply to #ChiefJusticeRoberts annual review is this: people will follow the court's rulings when they are based upon law. Unfortunately, we have courts, including the #SupremeCourt, that now issue rulings based upon political doctrine.

My reply to #ChiefJusticeRoberts annual review is this: people will follow the court's rulings when they are based upon law. Unfortunately, we have courts, including the #SupremeCourt, that now issue rulings based upon political doctrine.

@ZhiZhu

This is a frank and informative article about the decline in the public confidence of #scotus under #chiefjusticeRoberts, from a memoir by recently retired judge David Tatel from the DC Court of Appeals.

One of the reasons Tatel gave for his retirement was "... a Supreme Court that seemed to hold in such low regard the principles to which I've dedicated my life."

I hope more judges - active and retired - will speak out about these issues.

@ZhiZhu

This is a frank and informative article about the decline in the public confidence of #scotus under #chiefjusticeRoberts, from a memoir by recently retired judge David Tatel from the DC Court of Appeals.

One of the reasons Tatel gave for his retirement was "... a Supreme Court that seemed to hold in such low regard the principles to which I've dedicated my life."

I hope more judges - active and retired - will speak out about these issues.

@ZhiZhu

This is a frank and informative article about the decline in the public confidence of #scotus under #chiefjusticeRoberts, from a memoir by recently retired judge David Tatel from the DC Court of Appeals.

One of the reasons Tatel gave for his retirement was "... a Supreme Court that seemed to hold in such low regard the principles to which I've dedicated my life."

I hope more judges - active and retired - will speak out about these issues.

@ZhiZhu

This is a frank and informative article about the decline in the public confidence of #scotus under #chiefjusticeRoberts, from a memoir by recently retired judge David Tatel from the DC Court of Appeals.

One of the reasons Tatel gave for his retirement was "... a Supreme Court that seemed to hold in such low regard the principles to which I've dedicated my life."

I hope more judges - active and retired - will speak out about these issues.

@ZhiZhu

This is a frank and informative article about the decline in the public confidence of #scotus under #chiefjusticeRoberts, from a memoir by recently retired judge David Tatel from the DC Court of Appeals.

One of the reasons Tatel gave for his retirement was "... a Supreme Court that seemed to hold in such low regard the principles to which I've dedicated my life."

I hope more judges - active and retired - will speak out about these issues.

https://act.citizensforethics.org/a/alito-recuse-petition

He can blame his wife all he wants, but he still needs to recuse himself from any and all cases related to the January 6th insurrection…it’s up to #ChiefJusticeRoberts to intervene.

Federal judges legally must recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned.…it is difficult to make any reasonable case for #Alito’s impartiality…

Sign and demand Justice Samuel Alito recuse from all Supreme Court cases related to #January6th

#SCOTUSreform #scotus

https://act.citizensforethics.org/a/alito-recuse-petition

He can blame his wife all he wants, but he still needs to recuse himself from any and all cases related to the January 6th insurrection…it’s up to #ChiefJusticeRoberts to intervene.

Federal judges legally must recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned.…it is difficult to make any reasonable case for #Alito’s impartiality…

Sign and demand Justice Samuel Alito recuse from all Supreme Court cases related to #January6th

#SCOTUSreform #scotus

https://act.citizensforethics.org/a/alito-recuse-petition

He can blame his wife all he wants, but he still needs to recuse himself from any and all cases related to the January 6th insurrection…it’s up to #ChiefJusticeRoberts to intervene.

Federal judges legally must recuse themselves if their impartiality can reasonably be questioned.…it is difficult to make any reasonable case for #Alito’s impartiality…

Sign and demand Justice Samuel Alito recuse from all Supreme Court cases related to #January6th

#SCOTUSreform #scotus