In a forceful 49-page dissent, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor on Monday assailed her conservative colleagues for a decision that she contends grants President Donald Trump "far greater power than ever before" over the executive branch. The majority's ruling, Sotomayor argued, overturns 90 years of judicial precedent and "upends… the separation of powers."
Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed profound concern that the court had wrongly concluded that historical practice and constitutional interpretation supported the majority's view. "Today, this Court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of Government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time," she wrote. "Its conclusion is wrong."
The case centered on President Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, both appointees of President Joe Biden, who were removed without stated cause. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, reversed the precedent established in the 1935 case Humphrey's Executor v. United States. That landmark decision had affirmed that Congress could place limits on a president's ability to remove officials serving in independent regulatory agencies.
Sotomayor characterized the majority's reasoning as a "half-baked theory of executive power" that, while appearing broad, contained undefined exemptions. "The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow," she wrote.
She began her dissent by acknowledging the practical necessity for certain government functions to operate independently of immediate political influence. These areas, she noted, include the management of nuclear energy, the security of the monetary supply, and the safety of American workplaces, consumer products, and chemical hazards. Federal agencies responsible for these domains are often staffed by career officials who serve across multiple presidential administrations.
"In these and many other areas, the wisdom of the centuries has taught that some decisions should depend not only on who is in office — much less on who is disfavored or owed a favor by those in office — but also on judgment, expertise, and the public good," Sotomayor stated.
She asserted that agencies like the FTC would inevitably be transformed in ways unforeseen and actively guarded against by their creators. This transformation, she argued, would fundamentally recalibrate the nation's balance of power.
Furthermore, Sotomayor pointed out that the court's decision appeared to contradict its own stance from just six years prior. At that time, in a case where the court's balance still favored conservatives, the justices had determined that certain expert officials could only be removed by the president for "good cause." The FTC commissioners, she suggested, would typically fall under such an exemption.
Sotomayor also dedicated a significant portion of her dissent to arguing that the Founding Fathers intended to limit the president's unbridled authority to remove government officials. She criticized what she described as the majority's "radical theory of unitary executive power."
According to her interpretation, federal power is better balanced when expert officials maintain their independence and are held accountable through the legislative and executive branches. "Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control," Sotomayor wrote.
She concluded that the decision bestows upon the President a level of power not granted by the people, Congress, or the Constitution. "In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty," she wrote. "I respectfully dissent."