{"id":1353,"date":"2026-01-05T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-05T17:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/?p=1353"},"modified":"2026-01-11T15:36:42","modified_gmt":"2026-01-11T20:36:42","slug":"unitary-executive-theory-helps-trump-expand-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/2026\/01\/05\/unitary-executive-theory-helps-trump-expand-power\/","title":{"rendered":"Historic dispute over \u2018unitary executive\u2019 advances in Trump era"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Char\u00adlotte Har\u00advey 
UConn Jour\u00adnal\u00adism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A polit\u00adi\u00adcal the\u00ado\u00adry that has been advanc\u00ading for 100 years is now more influ\u00aden\u00adtial than ever before \u2013 tak\u00ading cen\u00adter stage in recent Supreme Court argu\u00adments, despite many experts claim\u00ading it invalid.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The uni\u00adtary exec\u00adu\u00adtive the\u00ado\u00adry is a polit\u00adi\u00adcal, legal and con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal the\u00ado\u00adry that asserts that all the pow\u00ader of the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch is held by one indi\u00advid\u00adual: the pres\u00adi\u00addent of the Unit\u00aded States.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Today, Pres\u00adi\u00addent Don\u00adald Trump\u2019s admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion is stretch\u00ading the the\u00ado\u00adry beyond what has ever been pre\u00advi\u00adous\u00adly attempt\u00aded and is using the the\u00ado\u00adry to jus\u00adti\u00adfy a wide range of unprece\u00addent\u00aded actions. A recent Supreme Court case address\u00ading the the\u00ado\u00adry, Trump v. Slaugh\u00adter, began oral argu\u00adments on Dec. 8, 2025. It may over\u00adturn near\u00adly a cen\u00adtu\u00adry of legal prece\u00addent and expand the pow\u00aders of the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adcy, fur\u00adther erod\u00ading the sep\u00ada\u00adra\u00adtion between the pres\u00adi\u00addent and inde\u00adpen\u00addent agen\u00adcies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sotirios Bar\u00adber, an emer\u00adi\u00adtus pro\u00adfes\u00adsor of con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal law at the Uni\u00adver\u00adsi\u00adty of Notre Dame who has writ\u00adten about the the\u00ado\u00adry, is among the con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal schol\u00adars that deny the uni\u00adtary exec\u00adu\u00adtive the\u00ado\u00adry has legit\u00adi\u00adma\u00adcy at all. He said it relies on a mis\u00adun\u00adder\u00adstand\u00ading of his\u00adto\u00adry and mis\u00adin\u00adter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion of our country\u2019s foun\u00adda\u00adtion\u00adal texts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis the\u00ado\u00adry has cogency entire\u00adly because Amer\u00adi\u00adcans don\u2019t know too much about their Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion,\u201d he said.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A quarrel of the first Congress<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Washington delivering his inaugural address April 1789, in the old city hall, New-York. Painted by T.H. Matteson; engraved on steel by H.S. Sadd. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.<\/p>\n\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Washington-at-First-Congress-1789.jpg\" src=\"http:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Washington-at-First-Congress-1789.jpg\" alt=\"Washington delivering his inaugural address April 1789, in the old city hall, New-York.\" class=\"wp-image-1389\" srcset=\"https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Washington-at-First-Congress-1789.jpg 640w, https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Washington-at-First-Congress-1789-300x243.jpg 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px\">
Wash\u00ading\u00adton deliv\u00ader\u00ading his inau\u00adgur\u00adal address April 1789, in the old city hall, New-York. Paint\u00aded by T.H. Mat\u00adte\u00adson; engraved on steel by H.S. Sadd. Library of Con\u00adgress Prints and Pho\u00adtographs Divi\u00adsion.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The argu\u00adment over the scope of the president\u2019s pow\u00ader goes back to the very first Con\u00adgress in 1789. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jed Shuger\u00adman, a law pro\u00adfes\u00adsor at Boston Uni\u00adver\u00adsi\u00adty School of Law, said that there was a split among mem\u00adbers as to whether the president\u2019s removal pow\u00ader was grant\u00aded by the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion and con\u00adtrolled sole\u00adly by the chief exec\u00adu\u00adtive, or if the removal pow\u00ader was like the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adt\u2019s appoint\u00adment pow\u00ader and required Sen\u00adate approval. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shuger\u00adman, who sub\u00admit\u00adted an ami\u00adcus brief to the Supreme Court in the 2024 case Secu\u00adri\u00adties and Exchange Com\u00admis\u00adsion v. Jaresky \u2013 anoth\u00ader case the Supreme Court decid\u00aded with impli\u00adca\u00adtions for the removal pow\u00ader and the struc\u00adture of inde\u00adpen\u00addent agen\u00adcies \u2014 refers to the two sides as the \u201cpres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adtial\u00adists\u201d and the \u201ccon\u00adgres\u00adsion\u00adal\u00adists.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pro\u00adpo\u00adnents of the uni\u00adtary exec\u00adu\u00adtive the\u00ado\u00adry argue that the \u201cpres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adtial\u00adist\u201d fac\u00adtion, led by James Madi\u00adson and Alexan\u00adder Hamil\u00adton, won out and that the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion does, in fact, grant the pres\u00adi\u00addent the pow\u00ader to remove offi\u00adcials with\u00adin the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch with\u00adout lim\u00adit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

They cite two claus\u00ades in Arti\u00adcle 2 of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion as the basis for their the\u00ado\u00adry \u2013 the Take Care Clause and the Vest\u00ading Clause. They argue that the first clause gives the pres\u00adi\u00addent the abil\u00adi\u00adty to remove all offi\u00adcials and direct every agency with\u00adin the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch. They argue that the sec\u00adond vests all exec\u00adu\u00adtive pow\u00ader in the pres\u00adi\u00addent alone and that every\u00adone with\u00adin the branch is sim\u00adply car\u00adry\u00ading out their bid\u00adding and allows removal if the pres\u00adi\u00addent does not believe they are car\u00adry\u00ading out their will.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion has also argued these points in court.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump v. Slaugh\u00adter, con\u00adcerns the March 2025 fir\u00ading of Fed\u00ader\u00adal Trade Com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00ader Rebec\u00adca Slaugh\u00adter. Trump had nom\u00adi\u00adnat\u00aded her to serve on the com\u00admis\u00adsion in 2018. She chal\u00adlenged her fir\u00ading in court, argu\u00ading Trump does not have the abil\u00adi\u00adty to fire her except for just cause.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the administration\u2019s brief in Trump v. Slaugh\u00adter, Trump\u2019s lawyers leaned heav\u00adi\u00adly upon Arti\u00adcle 2 and the pow\u00aders it grants the pres\u00adi\u00addent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Framers \u2018sought to encour\u00adage ener\u00adgetic, vig\u00ador\u00adous, deci\u00adsive, and speedy exe\u00adcu\u00adtion of the laws by plac\u00ading in the hands of a sin\u00adgle, con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal\u00adly indis\u00adpens\u00adable, indi\u00advid\u00adual the ulti\u00admate author\u00adi\u00adty that, in respect to the oth\u00ader branch\u00ades, the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion divides among many,\u2019 \u201d Trump\u2019s lawyer\u2019s wrote in their brief, quot\u00ading the Supreme Court opin\u00adion in the 1997 case Clin\u00adton v. Jones. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe think that the text of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion con\u00adfers the exec\u00adu\u00adtive pow\u00ader, all of it, on the pres\u00adi\u00addent,\u201d Solic\u00adi\u00adtor Gen\u00ader\u00adal D. John Sauer said in oral argu\u00adments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Shuger\u00adman and oth\u00ader schol\u00adars argue that this is an inac\u00adcu\u00adrate inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion of his\u00adto\u00adry and the mean\u00ading of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe his\u00adtor\u00adi\u00adcal evi\u00addence and the orig\u00adi\u00adnal pub\u00adlic mean\u00ading of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion is over\u00adwhelm\u00ading that the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion did not give the pres\u00adi\u00addent uncon\u00addi\u00adtion\u00adal removal pow\u00ader of the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch,\u201d Shuger\u00adman said in an inter\u00adview.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bar\u00adber argues that even if the framers of the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion had intend\u00aded the uni\u00adtary exec\u00adu\u00adtive the\u00ado\u00adry to be true regard\u00ading removal pow\u00ader, they did not plan for the pres\u00adi\u00addent to become all-pow\u00ader\u00adful in rul\u00ading the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch. Even Hamil\u00adton, a lead\u00ading fig\u00adure of the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adtial\u00adist fac\u00adtion, did not pic\u00adture the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch hav\u00ading more pow\u00ader than the oth\u00ader branch\u00ades of gov\u00adern\u00adment, he said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHamil\u00adton assumes, yeah, you\u2019ve got a pow\u00ader\u00adful pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adcy, but you also have a pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adcy that\u2019s checked by oth\u00ader branch\u00ades of the gov\u00adern\u00adment that are also pow\u00ader\u00adful,\u201d Bar\u00adber said.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Modern Legal History<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

There is no dis\u00adpute that there are many posi\u00adtions with\u00adin the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch that are sub\u00adject to removal by the pres\u00adi\u00addent at will, such as cab\u00adi\u00adnet offi\u00adcials and the president\u2019s advis\u00aders, which gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly change with each admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cYou can\u2019t sad\u00addle the pres\u00adi\u00addent with advis\u00aders that the pres\u00adi\u00addent doesn\u2019t want around,\u201d said Daniel K. Birk, a lawyer and con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal schol\u00adar who pre\u00advi\u00adous\u00adly served as a vis\u00adit\u00ading assis\u00adtant pro\u00adfes\u00adsor at Chica\u00adgo-Kent Col\u00adlege of Law.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the most impor\u00adtant ques\u00adtions being brought before the Court is whether Con\u00adgress can cre\u00adate agen\u00adcies with inde\u00adpen\u00addent lead\u00aders that are intend\u00aded to be insu\u00adlat\u00aded from polit\u00adi\u00adcal influ\u00adence. This prac\u00adtice dates back to at least 1790, when Con\u00adgress cre\u00adat\u00aded the \u201cSink\u00ading Fund Com\u00admis\u00adsion\u201d to pay debt and dis\u00adperse funds with com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00aders that could not be removed by the pres\u00adi\u00addent. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

In a 1926 case, Myers v. Unit\u00aded States, the Supreme Court con\u00adsid\u00adered whether Pres\u00adi\u00addent Woodrow Wil\u00adson could remove the First-Class U.S. Post\u00admas\u00adter despite a law pro\u00adhibit\u00ading him from doing so. The court ruled that the pro\u00adhi\u00adbi\u00adtion was a vio\u00adla\u00adtion of the sep\u00ada\u00adra\u00adtion of pow\u00aders and undu\u00adly restrict\u00aded the pres\u00adi\u00addent.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Pres\u00adi\u00addent is empow\u00adered by the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion to remove any exec\u00adu\u00adtive offi\u00adcer appoint\u00aded by him by and with the advice and con\u00adsent of the Sen\u00adate, and this pow\u00ader is not sub\u00adject in its exer\u00adcise to the assent of the Sen\u00adate, nor can it be made so by an act of Con\u00adgress,\u201d Chief Jus\u00adtice William Taft, the only mem\u00adber of the court to also serve as pres\u00adi\u00addent, wrote in the major\u00adi\u00adty opin\u00adion.  <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
The back of the Supreme Court building with the inscription \u201cJustice the Guardian of Liberty.\u201d Source: Library of Congress.<\/p>\n\" data-large-file=\"https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Library-of-Congress-and-Supreme-Court-768x1024-1.jpg\" src=\"http:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Library-of-Congress-and-Supreme-Court-768x1024-1.jpg\" alt=\"Back of the Supreme Court building.\" class=\"wp-image-1390\" style=\"aspect-ratio:2\/3;object-fit:cover\" srcset=\"https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Library-of-Congress-and-Supreme-Court-768x1024-1.jpg 768w, https:\/\/digitaljournalism.uconn.edu\/balance-of-power\/files\/2026\/01\/Library-of-Congress-and-Supreme-Court-768x1024-1-225x300.jpg 225w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px\">
The back of the Supreme Court build\u00ading with the inscrip\u00adtion \u201cJus\u00adtice the Guardian of Lib\u00ader\u00adty.\u201d The Supreme Court is hear\u00ading a case regard\u00ading the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adt\u2019s pow\u00ader over inde\u00adpen\u00addent agen\u00adcies. Pho\u00adto cour\u00adtesy of the Library of Con\u00adgress.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In 1935, the court reversed its posi\u00adtion in anoth\u00ader case, Humphrey\u2019s Execu\u00adtor v. Unit\u00aded States, which con\u00adsid\u00adered Pres\u00adi\u00addent Franklin D. Roo\u00adsevelt\u2019s s fir\u00ading of an FTC mem\u00adber over pol\u00adi\u00adcy dis\u00adagree\u00adments, even though the act cre\u00adat\u00ading the agency in 1914 spec\u00adi\u00adfied that com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00aders could only be fired for \u201cjust cause.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roosevelt\u2019s admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion argued that not allow\u00ading him to fire the com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00ader undu\u00adly lim\u00adit\u00aded his pow\u00ader. He lost. The sep\u00ada\u00adra\u00adtion of pow\u00aders, the jus\u00adtices rea\u00adsoned, neces\u00adsi\u00adtat\u00aded Con\u00adgress hav\u00ading the pow\u00ader to cre\u00adate agen\u00adcies that are out of the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adt\u2019s reach and \u201cfree from the con\u00adtrol or coer\u00adcive influ\u00adence, direct or indi\u00adrect.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the years after that deci\u00adsion, the Supreme Court relied on the Humphrey\u2019s deci\u00adsion as prece\u00addent in cas\u00ades such as Myron Wiener v. Unit\u00aded States in 1958 in anoth\u00ader instance of pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adtial removal.  The court opin\u00adion stat\u00aded  that the \u201cassump\u00adtion\u201d in the Myers case that the pres\u00adi\u00addent had inher\u00adent con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal pow\u00aders to remove offi\u00adcials regard\u00adless of what restric\u00adtions Con\u00adgress imposed on their tenure was incor\u00adrect. They said the think\u00ading in the Myers deci\u00adsion was \u201cshort-lived,\u201d hav\u00ading been over\u00adturned less than 10 years lat\u00ader with a unan\u00adi\u00admous court rul\u00ading in the Humphrey\u2019s case, that includ\u00aded some of the judges who had ruled in the major\u00adi\u00adty in the pre\u00advi\u00adous case.                <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until 2020, the under\u00adstand\u00ading was that the prece\u00addent set in the Humphrey\u2019s case applied and that pres\u00adi\u00addents could only remove inde\u00adpen\u00addent agency heads for just cause. That restric\u00adtion was chal\u00adlenged in regards to the struc\u00adture of the Con\u00adsumer Finan\u00adcial Pro\u00adtec\u00adtion Bureau, cre\u00adat\u00aded after the 2008 finan\u00adcial cri\u00adsis.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Seila Law v. CFPB, a law firm that was being inves\u00adti\u00adgat\u00aded by the CFPB chal\u00adlenged the agency\u2019s con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal\u00adi\u00adty when declin\u00ading to com\u00adply with orders to pro\u00adduce doc\u00adu\u00adments. When Con\u00adgress cre\u00adat\u00aded the agency in 2010, they spec\u00adi\u00adfied that the agency would have a sin\u00adgle direc\u00adtor that served a five-year term and could be removed for \u201cinef\u00adfi\u00adcien\u00adcy, neglect of duty, or malfea\u00adsance out\u00adside of office\u201d \u2014 the three con\u00addi\u00adtions that can be con\u00adsid\u00adered a \u201cjust cause\u201d fir\u00ading. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court decid\u00aded that the struc\u00adture of the agency where the pres\u00adi\u00addent could only remove the direc\u00adtor for cause vio\u00adlat\u00aded the sep\u00ada\u00adra\u00adtion of pow\u00aders under the U.S. Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion. They said the Myers deci\u00adsion was the appro\u00adpri\u00adate prece\u00addent instead of the more recent Humphrey\u2019s case, which they said rep\u00adre\u00adsent\u00aded an excep\u00adtion to it.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

In a 2021 case, Collins v. Yellen,  that ques\u00adtioned the con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal\u00adi\u00adty of the Fed\u00ader\u00adal Hous\u00ading Finance Agency, the court ruled that the struc\u00adture of the agency \u2013 again run by a sin\u00adgle direc\u00adtor who could only be removed \u201cfor cause\u201d \u2014 vio\u00adlat\u00aded the sep\u00ada\u00adra\u00adtion of pow\u00aders. The rul\u00ading solid\u00adi\u00adfied the broad\u00aden\u00ading of the removal pow\u00aders of the pres\u00adi\u00addent and weak\u00aden\u00ading the abil\u00adi\u00adty of Con\u00adgress to keep agen\u00adcies inde\u00adpen\u00addent from the chief exec\u00adu\u00adtive. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n

Now, after a spate of fir\u00adings by Trump on the basis of polit\u00adi\u00adcal loy\u00adal\u00adty, includ\u00ading a mem\u00adber of the FTC, the Supreme Court is poised to poten\u00adtial\u00adly rule that the pres\u00adi\u00addent has the abil\u00adi\u00adty to remove any mem\u00adber of an inde\u00adpen\u00addent agency with\u00adin the exec\u00adu\u00adtive branch.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s lawyer Solic\u00adi\u00adtor Gen\u00ader\u00adal Dean John Sauer argued that that the deci\u00adsion in the Humphrey\u2019s case should be over\u00adturned. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHumphrey\u2019s Execu\u00adtor is a decay\u00ading husk with bold pre\u00adten\u00adsions,\u201d Sauer said in his open\u00ading remarks before the court. \u201cThe Court should over\u00adrule Humphrey\u2019s Execu\u00adtor<\/em> explic\u00adit\u00adly and restore the sep\u00ada\u00adra\u00adtion of pow\u00aders to our gov\u00adern\u00adment.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
Solic\u00adi\u00adtor Gen\u00ader\u00adal Dean John Sauer, the lawyer rep\u00adre\u00adsent\u00ading the Trump admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtion before the Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaugh\u00adter. He has argued in favor of the uni\u00adtary exec\u00adu\u00adtive the\u00ado\u00adry in allow\u00ading the pres\u00adi\u00addent to remove offi\u00adcials pre\u00advi\u00adous\u00adly con\u00adsid\u00adered unre\u00admov\u00adable. Pho\u00adto cour\u00adtesy of Wiki\u00adme\u00addia<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In oral argu\u00adments, Chief Jus\u00adtice John Roberts echoed Sauer\u2019s lan\u00adguage, call\u00ading the for\u00admer prece\u00addent \u201cjust a dried husk of what\u00adev\u00ader peo\u00adple used to think it was.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Expanding Presidential Power<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Trump was not the first pres\u00adi\u00addent to expand the pow\u00aders of the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adcy under the guise of the uni\u00adtary exec\u00adu\u00adtive the\u00ado\u00adry, though schol\u00adars dis\u00adagree when the more extreme inter\u00adpre\u00adta\u00adtion being used today began to take form.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some point to the pres\u00adi\u00adden\u00adcy of Richard Nixon, while oth\u00aders cite Ronald Rea\u00adgan.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n