The Coming Assault on American Democracy: How the Supreme Court Threatens to Unleash Presidential Power

The Constitutional Battle Reaching Its Climax

The stage is set for what may become one of the most consequential constitutional battles of our generation. On Monday, the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power in American government. At the heart of this conflict lies a simple but profound question: how much control should the President wield over independent government agencies designed to operate free from political interference?

The case centers on President Donald Trump’s dismissal of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, despite federal law stating that commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This isn’t an isolated incident—it represents the culmination of a decades-long project by the conservative legal movement to concentrate power in the executive branch, a project that now appears poised for ultimate victory before a sympathetic Supreme Court majority.

Historical Context and the Road to This Moment

The origins of this constitutional confrontation trace back to the Reagan administration, where a young lawyer named John G. Roberts Jr. first articulated the vision now coming to fruition. In a 1983 memo, the future Chief Justice argued that independent agencies represented a “constitutional anomaly” and suggested the time might be “ripe to reconsider their existence.” This philosophical foundation has guided conservative legal thinking for four decades, finding its ultimate expression in the “unitary executive theory”—the idea that the Constitution vests all executive power exclusively in the president.

The legal precedent under threat dates to 1935’s Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that Congress could create independent agencies with leaders protected from arbitrary presidential removal. This decision recognized that certain government functions require insulation from political winds to effectively serve the public interest. For nearly 90 years, this framework has allowed agencies like the FTC, Federal Reserve, and Consumer Product Safety Commission to operate with a degree of independence crucial to their missions.

The Systematic Dismantling of Institutional Independence

The Trump administration’s aggressive use of removal power has been systematic and deliberate. Since returning to the White House, President Trump has ousted Democratic leaders across multiple independent agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. Each firing represents another brick removed from the wall separating expert governance from raw political power.

The Supreme Court’s recent emergency orders have consistently sided with the administration, allowing these firings to take effect while litigation proceeds. These temporary decisions have strongly signaled the Court’s ultimate direction, with the majority stating in an unsigned May opinion that “the Constitution vests the executive power in the president” who may therefore “remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.”

The Fundamental Threat to American Democracy

What we are witnessing is nothing less than a constitutional coup in slow motion. The framers of our Constitution specifically designed a system of separated powers to prevent any single branch from accumulating excessive authority. They understood that concentrated power represents the greatest threat to liberty. Independent agencies serve as crucial buffers in this system, allowing for governance based on expertise rather than political allegiance.

The potential consequences of overturning nearly a century of precedent are staggering. More than two dozen agencies responsible for protecting consumers, workers, the environment, and nuclear safety could be transformed into political extensions of the White House. The Federal Trade Commission’s mission to protect consumers from deceptive practices and monopoly power would become subject to the political calculations of whoever occupies the Oval Office.

This isn’t merely a theoretical concern about governmental structure—it’s about whether Americans can trust that food safety, environmental protection, and consumer rights will be defended consistently rather than sacrificed to political expediency. The very concept of nonpartisan expertise in governance hangs in the balance.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Originalism

The legal arguments advanced by the administration reveal the selective application of constitutional principles that has become characteristic of this Supreme Court. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contends that agency heads are essentially the president’s “alter ego” and that presidential control is an “indispensable tool of control.” This argument conveniently ignores that for nearly a century, 15 presidents of both parties operated within the existing system, accepting that FTC commissioners could not be removed without cause.

Even more troubling is the historical sleight of hand being employed. As University of Chicago law professor David Strauss notes, the historical record on this issue from the founding era is “at least equivocal.” This presents a profound test for justices who consider themselves originalists. Will they follow the evidence where it leads, or will they use originalism as a pretext for achieving their preferred political outcome?

The participation of former Republican officials and organizations like the Chamber of Commerce in supporting the administration’s position reveals the underlying agenda: creating a system where corporate interests can more easily influence regulatory outcomes through a politically responsive executive branch.

The Liberal Dissent and the Defense of Institutions

The court’s three liberal justices have consistently sounded the alarm about where this trajectory leads. Justice Elena Kagan has accused the majority of displaying “impatience” to decide the fate of the 1935 precedent and of being “raring” to overturn it. In her September dissent, she warned that the majority had already “handed full control” of multiple agencies to the president through its emergency orders.

These dissents represent more than mere disagreement—they are a defense of the institutional stability that has characterized American governance for generations. As Ms. Slaughter’s lawyer Amit Agarwal correctly notes, overturning this precedent “would profoundly destabilize institutions that are now inextricably intertwined with the fabric of American governance.”

The bipartisan support for maintaining agency independence—including from former FTC chairs nominated by presidents of both parties—demonstrates that this isn’t a partisan issue but rather a fundamental question about the structure of our government.

The Stakes for American Liberty

What makes this moment particularly dangerous is that it represents the convergence of multiple threats to democratic governance. We have a president openly hostile to institutional constraints, a Supreme Court majority ideologically predisposed to expand executive power, and a conservative legal movement that has been preparing for this opportunity for decades.

The framers understood that preserving liberty requires constant vigilance against power’s natural tendency to concentrate itself. They built a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent what now appears imminent: the creation of an imperial presidency with virtually unchecked control over the entire executive branch.

If the Court rules as expected, we will have crossed a constitutional Rubicon. The carefully constructed system that has prevented authoritarianism in America for more than two centuries will be fundamentally altered. The independence of agencies that protect everything from the safety of our products to the stability of our financial system will become contingent on the political whims of whichever party controls the White House.

The Path Forward: Defending Constitutional Principles

This case represents more than a legal dispute—it is a battle for the soul of American democracy. The principles at stake go to the very heart of what has made America’s constitutional system the envy of the world: the diffusion of power, the protection of minority interests, and the prioritization of good governance over raw political power.

As citizens committed to democracy and liberty, we must recognize this moment for what it is: a constitutional crisis that demands our attention and action. The fate of our system of government shouldn’t be determined by nine unelected justices pursuing an ideological agenda decades in the making. It should reflect the wisdom of the framers who understood that concentrated power is the enemy of freedom.

The coming decision will test whether our institutions remain strong enough to withstand the relentless pressure of power consolidation. The very concept of limited government—the foundation of American liberty—hangs in the balance. We must hope that enough justices recognize the profound damage they would inflict on our constitutional system if they proceed down this dangerous path.