Supreme Court rules president can remove independent-agency appointees
The Roberts court continues to reshape the American Republic into a governing system dominated by an Imperial Presidency.
Exhausted in America164Robert’s legacy will forever be lies and grift, at the expense of the Constitution.
Hope ☄️ (NO DMS!)111SCROTUS Roberts, & other corrupt justices wouldn't be in this position if it wasn't for Citizens United, Heritage Foundation & billionaire PEDOs messing with their unconstitutional rulings. 🤬
minutesdrag.bsky.social70I really really fucking hate this timeline. 🤬😭😭🤬
MTfromCC53We will replace the entire FTC, FEC, FCC and SEC when Dems win back the White House in 2028.
Pamelia Valentine30This ruling destabilizes our government every 4 years. No continuity, no line of seniority. Other countries will not create treaties, economic agreements or international infrastructure with us. Every 4 years will be a gamble, even MORE than it is right now. THIS is a death blow to our nation.
Drew Warned You24And when Dems hold office again, they better wield it with a hammer
Michael P. Breen31* - Unless the President is a Democrat, in which case he cannot change the wallpaper in the Oval Office without the unanimous consent of Congress
The Detroiter6Know what we need? Cleansing fire.
evangeline63.bsky.social3JOHN ROBERTS MADE BRIBERY LEGAL WITH 🩸💰CITIZENS UNITED🩸💰SOOOO THAT BITCHHHH COULD TAKE BRIBES!!!! THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT IS A BRIBERY CRIME SYNDICATE FOR THE FEDERALIST/HERITAGE OLIGARCHY.
neverabridesmaid.bsky.social3Sorry Donald, your a walking deadman , the next President will be democratic, and will have the same power that you have. You're a shit stain on this world. You're entire family WILL be hated and demeaned as they fail in life. You're a rapist, a pedophile and a loser.
SDDPHOTO2They are not stupid enough to NOT know that he is stupid and demented- so is money the only motivation they have. ????
Glen2Once you own the court, you've won.
Paul Barrett ❌👑2The noted jurisprudential scholar Donald J. ("Bozo Fascist") Trump underscores how diligently the Roberts Court is supporting the reckless expansion of executive authority, a key plank in the foundation of authoritarianism in the U.S.
Greg Save Democracy2At some point there’s going to be a Democrat President who gets to abide by these same rules. When Gym Jordan, Comer Pyle, Masterbating Mike Johnson and the rest of the GQP start whining, I hope said Democrat President tells them to go Fuck themselves.
Again, if there's a Democratic majority in the House in 2027, I think it's imperative that they start impeaching Supreme Court justices.
Ned Resnikoff231The corrupt Roberts Court is engaged in a war of annihilation on the legislative branch, unilateral disarmament and surrender are not acceptable options.
Adam Serwer72Symbolic resolutions condemning socialism are more likely
Dag.43No you aren't going to get 2/3 in the senate. But having a senate trial where Alito and Thomas have to explain all their gifts from wealthy donors would actually be a great thing for our democracy.
Paul Alcocer13Properly done it could paint Supreme Court reform plans as the moderate sensible option.
Brian C. Keegan, Ph.D.11There's plenty Congress can do re: investigations, sworn testimony, jurisdiction stripping, budgeting, etc. to make these ayatollahs' lives absolutely miserable.
R. Scott Rogers5The standard for judges is not “high crimes,” it’s “good behavior.” Congress would be right to examine conduct on the bench in light of a “good behavior” standard. Disregarding the plain text of the law, as 4 justices did today, is not “good behavior” for a judge at any level.
Rob Tracinski20This is one of my promises.
April8I truly hope that people are talking to friends and neighbors. We need to push not only on the midterms, but on the agenda for the next several years.
Ollie McClellan7It's imperative they expend their time and resources on a dead letter that will accomplish nothing, rather than attempting to pass legislation that might actually do something.
Fish Chowder6There is an historical precedent for this. The precedent was bribery. Thomas accepted millions of dollars from people with cases before the court. He did not recuse himself, and did not disclose the “gifts” through the disclosure process. That IS bribery.
Monica Byrne5The absolute fantasy world some people are still living in:
CaitBrie4Starting with Alito. He is also the epitome of why need to end life time appointments as he’s become more dangerous dumb and bitter over time.
Matt Goldberg4I agree, and that’s why I really don’t want Jeffries as Speaker. He has no stomach for a fight and represents a status quo that no longer functions. You can’t pretend you care about passing laws when there’s a court that says Democratic lawmakers don’t count.
I don’t have much to say about Slaughter, and honestly I think we do too much justice to the Roberts Court by treating its opinions like serious judicial reasoning. But I will say that it’s striking how openly the court treats congressional oversight as somehow antithetical to democratic government
Nicholas Handler1166The idea that the FTC must be “overseen” by the President so it does not become “subservient” to Congress seems deeply hostile to the whole enterprise of electoral democracy.
Langdon Grant19The current right-wing majority on the Supreme Court is best understood as the culmination of a decades-long project to ensure that a Republican president can never be forced out of office Watergate-style again.
Heidi Kitrosser14Absolutely. Re UET’s utter disregard for Congress’s electoral mandate, the jig was up as early as Scalia’s dissent in Morrison. bsky.app/profile/heid...
treeesq.bsky.social11100% agree that so-called legal experts need to stop acting as though anything the Roberts court does is based on rational legal reasoning or discernible legal philosophy. All 6 fascist "justices" are purely political actors ruling to protect their power, the wealth of corps and Trump,in that order.
nufcnuf8Seems like they expect later this year at least the House will go blue. They know gerrymandering is unpopular and probably ongoing tit-for-tat will eventually cascade into a national ban. They know DC and PR may become states. So they're banking on the Electoral College as their refuge?
Don Dechert5Possibly because those hearings a la Iran-Contra or Watergate are sources of extreme resentment toward Congress (and Dem Congress). That's inescapable for the unitary executive.
lastpositivist.bsky.social44I know this is crude but - is it the opinion of the US Supreme Court members that Trump is, like, good? Do they think he's doing a good job, that the sort of populist slop Bonapartist/mercantile monarch thing is good? Is it good for them, do they personally profit, maybe get in on the stock trades?
Professa Murray171/I am on vacation, folks, and was literally swimming with joyful dolphins (my enduring Porpoise!), and I don’t really process decisions until I teach them, but I have expecting this for awhile.
Jon Becker13Every member of Congress (especially the GOP) should be asked what they think their job is anymore.
justin van wormer7Worth considering how many of them just really do have a dumb guy who watches Fox News (because they are) idea of their role: we decide whether a law is good or not so Congress or the President don’t screw up the country by making decisions that aren’t American enough. By my count at least 3.
Genie Lauren3How can we start sabotaging the court?
Robin Johnson3This! The supreme court decisions aren't inexplicably stupid. They're explicably evil.
Lindsey Barrett3+1 to this. operationalizing dominant yet methodically stupid and morally insidious modes of reasoning is sometimes necessary as a persuasive stopgap. In all other situations, CLARIFY AND EMPHASIZE THAT IT IS NOT LEGITIMATE AND SUCKS
Gallifrey Stands2💯 to the last sentence!
Alice Jane Grimm (she/her)2We are still fighting the heirs of secession and segregation who equate Democracy with the equality of white men in their superiority over Black people and reject as tyrannical any body that gives representation to Black communities, even one as flawed as Congress
“In the Slaughter case, Justice Sotomayor delivered her dissent for 20 minutes. She was visibly angry. She talks about how they’re handing the president unprecedented power to reshape this government.” I would like to know how many Supreme Court justices are in the #Epstein files?
TakamineBill24I would assume that Clarence Thomas is in them. Possibly KKKavanaugh.
nobsforgma.bsky.social23I love Justice Sotomayor. She has a true sense and knowledge of The Law. And she is righteous!!!
Nathan Hoover23THIS IS A COUP FOLKS STRAIGHT OUT OF SCOTUS!
Bill Redekop18New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft is sure in there. Nobody sits beside Trump through the “Melania”premiere without a gun to their head.
Jason Froebe12The only good news is the next democratic president can fire every single maga in the executive branch
mickeyminor.bsky.social11Six SCOTUS criminals know the ax is going to fall on their necks because of their feckless abetting of a criminal GOP cabal. They have already soiled the Constitution with their criminal decisions and corruption.
Doug Hammond3There's more than a nonzero chance of one or more being in them, but I have a strong suspicion that all six of the maga justices are protecting whoever it whatever is in those files they don't want us to know about. Shit birds of a feather shit together.
Aeirould2Future Chief Justice Sotomayor pulls no punches here.
Carolyn Urban2Clarence Thomas is listed in the files as a pedophile rapist.
The notion that the president has absolute power over creations of Congress is already nuts, with no basis in law, but it reaches utterly absurd when it includes an unwritten "but not when some Supreme Court Justices feel like he's messing with the money" exception.
John Castiglione47Current doctrine is: Congress can create shells of agencies with various names; President can dismantle them, decline to spend money appropriated to them, fire everyone in them, use them to break the law if he so wishes, etc. And Congress has no authority to do anything about it. Obviously absurd.
Wudang96 💖🌻21reform isn't going to work out for us, is it? we're going to have to start over. 😔
Hal 100008An unconstrained executive means that the entire body of US Administrative law can flip 180 degrees every four years. This is not a recipe for stability; it's a recipe for complete dysfunction and chaos. Which ... I guess is what they want.
zemiron6I need to find a way for someone to push my law that all the Supreme Court justices have to go before Congress once per Court session under the power of subpeona and answer questions explaining their legal reasoning behind their decisions under oath. Call it the Supreme Court Transparency Act.
swmseattle.bsky.social6A good reason to pack the court to remove the power of the most radical judiciary in history. Overturning decades of precedent and the only one to take way an individual right is a reason people will understand.
Mina3Why have confirmation hearings at all when they only work for the president?
David Burbach 🇺🇸45Exactly this. It's incoherent other than the Roberts majority ruling so as to impose their own policy preferences (and partisan advantage) bsky.app/profile/nich...
Noah Berlatsky39obviously the founders intended the balance of powers to look like: Supreme Court>Fed>President>>>>>Congress that's just science
Mark Copelovitch35Again, the next Congress needs to put these Wizards in Robes, with their alchemy & entrail-burning & their Supreme Chutzpah, in their place. Every single privilege & power they are abusing is a purely extra-constitutional norm. New laws can & must replace those norms: bsky.app/profile/mcop...
Bruce Wilson16The Calvinball Court strikes again.
Steve Saideman12Perhaps nothing illustrates so quickly and so clearly that this is a Court of Bad Faith.
Sargoth (antediluvian backroom choreographer)9You know, when Marx said that the state is an apparatus for furthering the interests of capital,
Bopeep-Burton 💙🐓🏝🏡🏖 🦋🇺🇦🇨🇦🏳️🌈🇫🇷🇵🇸🏳️⚧️🌎2Make it make sense 😱
jdm2It’s pretty funny that the one specific carve out is not just because they want to protect the Money but because they have to protect the Money specifically because it is well known that the president is a fucking moron who doesn’t understand anything.
Tomorrow there will be a certain sort insisting that the birthright decision, assuming it goes as expected, proves the Roberts Court is some paragon of judicial independence. It proves nothing except that they're marginally less insane than the craziest white nationalists in Trump's inner circle.
Robert Black101That there will be literally any votes at all for the administration's position is itself a scandal and an outrage, a sign that our constitutional order is in grievous disrepair
David Bonowitz17It should be 9-0, of course, but it's already a bad sign that it won't surprise anyone if it's 7-2. And I hope I'm wrong, but the measurement of that margin could be as small as 5-4.
Dan Shay10And let's also not be counting chickens just yet. We all *hope* things go that way. But I do not take it as a given with this court.
Julie Novkov8If they decline to reach the constitutional question in the trans cases, that will also be portrayed as a laudatory example of judicial modesty.
Icefire95They ruled that the president is above the law. A ruling incompatible with the rule of law and on its own destroys the balance of power that the constitution was based on. That single ruling fatally undermined constitutional government and everything they've done since then has been naval gazing.
Charlenerd3I sometimes wonder to what extent, if any, their decisions are moderated by “expected scale of social unrest if we decide this way” and/or “how much more likely do reemergence of guillotines become.”
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling that increases Trump's power to fire independent regulators and gain control over independent govt agencies? Another step in the march toward dictatorship and a plot to destroy liberal democracy that's been underway for years. www.americaamerica.news/p/all-accord...
Mark VDH10This disastrous ruling literally eliminates “independent agencies”. They no longer exist.
maplepoutine.bsky.social6Supreme Court just guaranteed the U.S. will never see stability. Political appointments to agencies will now go to back and forth between Dems and Reps almost guaranteeing nothing gets done.
ShannonS RN,BSN🫀🌺☀️☮️🏖️5Doesn’t this mean that the next president, ideally a democrat, can do the same?
WholeGrains4And Democrats will say let’s just leave Trump’s corrupt Postmaster General in and see how that goes. Tired of all the worst people running everything INTO THE GROUND.
jaolsa52.bsky.social4It swings both ways. It will also make it easier for Dems for fire all of Trump's cronies.
caseyjojo.bsky.social3Court reforms are crucial if we are to save our system of government. The shape and role of SCOTUS needs to be re examined as one of the branches of government. We’ve lost the thread. The president was never meant to have this much power and the courts shouldn’t be neutering congress.
The Supreme Court just handed Trump sweeping new power, and that's only the beginning. Plus: a major mail-ballot ruling, E. Jean Carroll, Trump's latest fair fiasco, House GOP chaos, and much more in today's bulletin.
🇨🇦Frank🇳🇱11Handing Trump “sweeping new power” can backfire for republicans when a Democrat is in the WH.
Ido Amir7This "Supreme Court" needs to be swept out.
itmightbme.bsky.social4The Supreme Court protects rich people’s money but throws everyone else under the bus.
Benjamming2u22Time to Pay Up you Perv.
smknjohnny17.bsky.social2first of all; its not in the courts per-view to decide birthright citizenship! its been a part of our Constitution forever!!!!!! when Democrats retake the white house; a presidents powers must be severely trimmed down!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Farseeing1These sweeping new powers will also belong to the next DEMOCRATIC president
NEW: John Roberts's 5-4 opinion saving the Fed should have saved all independent agencies. In his 6-3 opinion over the Federal Trade Commission, however, Roberts ended the independence of the FTC and other agencies, sowing "chaos" across the federal government. Today, at Law Dork:
Steven Keppler4I just need to know why it's ok to have a "heartland" of executive authority but not a "penumbra" of rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments.
CA-NC-GA Lady2Robert’s seems hellbent on destruction of the gvt and the constitution. I don’t get it.
gchance60.bsky.social1(Not a lawyer) Can you opine on if Roberts created and violated the same precedence in these two rulings? It seems irrational. Am I wrong?
ControversyCow1I thought the liberals should have threatened to join Thomas in the cook case, if Roberts went ahead with his ad hoc unitary executive vision in Slaughter
Trending Finance3Fed saved; agencies' independence axed. #econsky
Clio22This is incredibly corrupt. A way must be found to bring this issue before the Court again...and ALL the others where (yelling) **the Roberts court undermined the rule of law ITSELF by IGNORING _stare decisis_ to smooth the way for a would-be dictator.**
A century of congressional laws, passed by both parties, about the shape and functions of executive agencies need to be done away with because independent agencies offend Gorsuch’s simplistic ideal of what the government should be.
Dustin14It will never happen but any honest application of this decision would require new rules of construction. You can’t claim Congress meant what it wrote when you’ve rewritten the past 100 years of interpretation. Those words mean something different now
Climate defender9Nice try Gorsuch, but now we know the next Democrat presidential nominee must be in favor of stacking the court. Fascism cannot stand no matter how much bullshit they throw at us.
Jack Q7Except he didn't actually do away with the laws. He left in place all the powers from the laws, and just none of the responsibilities. We would perhaps be better off if they had struck down the entire thing rather than mutate it into this monster.
jimbotexan.bsky.social4Yeah man but do you know how mean they were to his Mom for trying to destroy the EPA?
fatio.bsky.social2They sure are in a hurry to give more powers to an authoritarian administration.
Douglas Charles Johnson II1They're basically Constitutional Sherrifs in Montana ah this point ayem..
In a slashing dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision today that allows Trump to fire leaders of independent agencies for any reason or no reason, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority had destroyed the separation of powers & upended settled constitutional law." www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/u...
ianxz.bsky.social6Indeed. If independent agencies authorized by Congress can simply be neutered, and control taken by the President, then we do not have a separation of powers. It is only an illusion, having a branch of government that has no effect. Justices should be impeached.
HowardIan3282Sickening and depressing. Let’s see if he signs the Housing Bill even though he says he’s not concerned about the American’s finances. What a joke he is!😝
oliveevie.bsky.social2I just pray that Democrats are placed in power so all these decisions will backfire in their face. What was meant for others harm will ultimately work for their demise.
Adam Hunt 🇨🇦1It would be great if dissents counted for anything ...
kvconner.bsky.social1🎁‘Chaos Will Follow’ Ruling Allowing Trump Firings, Dissent Predicts In rare dissent from the bench, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said [SCOTUS} undid “centuries of political practice,” the court concluded the fed gov had been acting in “open defiance of the Constitution” www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/u...
Strider1Exactly. Which is why we need Constitutional reform. If we "only" change the justices or the law, all the fascists have to do is reverse it all the next time around. Our Constitution needs to be crystal-clear from now on in a number of issues.
Do I have this right? The Supreme Court affirmed that Donald Trump is a sexual predator, and then gives him unprecedented power to fire those who provide independent oversight at federal agencies?
InezSneks 🙄🙄4They did not affirm it. They refused to take it up. That is different. So the lower court ruling stands.
Unfunky In 5/43That is correct. #PackTheCourt presuming we get another chance…
randy1211.bsky.social2Just doesn't make sense. He's a convicted felon and probably a child rapist but he's still in office and walking around free. Anyone else would be in prison. Republican corruption.
XgenMattie1I hope I'm around long enough to read the history books of the future regarding this administration and not-so-supreme court.
In the same vein: It is extraordinary just how little effort Roberts (and Kavanaugh) put into distinguishing the Federal Reserve from every other independent agency. They can just speak it into existence. There's basically no law here, and barely any pretense of it. slate.com/news-and-pol...
Justice For Renee Good18They just forgot the cite to the landmark decision in Calvin v. Ball which supports many of their recent decisions
MGoCoder3It's all Calvinball. They are paid to rule in specific ways. They make up the details.
Final Soln. 2 the Fascist Question 🇬🇱🇵🇸🇺🇦1They are Jedi masters & the ‘force’ is hypocrisy
