Trump Moves to Fireboard Democracy: SCOTUS Opens the Door to Pure Executive Power
Trump, already in speedrun mode for “authoritarian-but-make-it-legal,” has found his next shortcut: firing members of independent government boards like they’re Apprentice contestants. And the Supreme Court? They’re not just holding the door open—they’re polishing the doorknob for him.
The Court's Quiet Alignment
Chief Justice John Roberts continues his well-practiced role as the Court’s institutionalist-in-residence—calmly observing as precedent after precedent is torched behind him. His brand of restraint, lauded by admirers as “measured,” has increasingly manifested as strategic silence—what constitutional scholars now refer to as “neutrality theater.” While major structural shifts unfold, Roberts appears content to play violin on the constitutional Titanic.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh remains a reliable vote in favor of expanding executive authority, so long as the executive is in a red tie. His jurisprudence, drenched in the language of “originalism,” consistently maps onto a vision of governance where the president rules, and the rest of us clap politely. For a man so fixated on the “intent of the Framers,” he seems curiously enthusiastic about reinterpreting the Constitution as a get-out-of-oversight-free card.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett has cultivated a reputation for precision and poise—an Ivy League scalpel in the Court’s effort to carve out protections for corporate and religious power. Her opinions read like a politely worded apocalypse: impeccably reasoned, surgically executed, and always leaning toward the quiet erosion of democratic norms.
Justice Samuel Alito doesn’t hide his intentions. He writes as if the Court were a battleground and dissent a personal insult. His recent decisions have read less like judicial reasoning and more like grievance manifestos, laser-focused on reasserting conservative dominance by any interpretive means necessary. Where others whisper about power, Alito shouts—often in footnotes.
Taken together, this bloc of justices has created what some experts are calling a “legal red carpet” for Trump’s more audacious ambitions—one vote, and one opinion, at a time.
Humphrey’s Executor Just Got Mugged
In a late-night judicial smoke signal, Chief Justice John Roberts paused a lower court ruling that had restored two Biden-appointed board members—Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB). These aren’t just bureaucratic extras; they are literal stopgaps against political abuse. Wilcox was the first Black woman in the NLRB’s 90-year history, which of course means she was also the first one Trump fired.
The Trump team is gunning to overturn Humphrey’s Executor—a 1935 precedent that says the president can’t just fire independent board members without cause. That case is the duct tape holding together what's left of checks and balances in agency governance. Trump’s lawyers want it gone. Why? Because being told “no” is oppression now, apparently.
Independent Agencies? Not If Daddy’s Mad
Once quaint ideas like “neutral oversight” and “separation of powers” are now being held hostage by the theory that if you were elected once, you should be allowed to fire anyone who disagrees with you, forever. The White House argued that letting these women return to their posts would cause “grave and irreparable harm to the President.”
Translation: The president’s feelings are hurt when people won’t obey him instantly.
This Is About the NLRB… and All the Rest
Without Wilcox, the NLRB lacked a quorum and couldn’t function. That’s a feature, not a bug. Trump wants to kneecap the board that protects labor rights as he guts the federal workforce. Harris? She was on the board that oversees disputes from federal employees—another obstacle in the way of his “drain the swamp and replace it with loyal interns” plan.
But make no mistake: this isn’t just about these two women. This is about turning independent boards into yes-man factories where nuance is punishable by firing.
What Happens If They Win?
Here’s where you insert your take: What does a country look like when the president can fire watchdogs at will? Spoiler: it looks like a banana republic, but with worse fonts and a more expensive military.
If this goes to a full hearing (and the signs say it might), the court could permanently erase Humphrey’s Executor. That would give presidents full power to hire/fire at will in places that used to require nonpartisan leadership. Think EPA, SEC, CFPB, and more. Basically, every agency that can hold a grudge against a billionaire or fine a polluter becomes a political sock puppet.
Checks and balances? That’s just political gluten—annoying and hard to digest.
Constitutional Crisis or Just another Monday?
We’re now at a point where the executive branch is arguing that its power must be unchallengeable in order to function. The courts are nodding politely. Congress is… somewhere. And the only people calling it out are, well, us—and maybe your retired civics teacher who now hosts a Constitution podcast from his garage.
This is the kind of slow-moving crisis that doesn’t inspire ticker tape headlines but rewires the machinery of government underneath your feet.
So if this felt obscure or procedural to you—good. That’s what they count on. The quiet stuff is what makes the loud stuff possible. Like a fire alarm with a broken battery… right before the place burns down.
And reader—this is your cue. Not to panic, but to pay attention. Maybe to shout a little. And definitely to laugh—because they hate that.
ConstitutionalChris Reply
You have to admire how Roberts manages to burn the Constitution while insisting he's just holding the match for someone else.