Supreme Court Oral Arguments

[25-332] Trump, President of United States v. Slaughter

Dec 8, 2025
General Sauer, an advocate for President Trump, passionately argues for broad presidential removal authority over executive officers, seeking to overturn the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor. He highlights the historical context and potential structural changes of such a decision. Respondent's Counsel, Mr. Huggaball, defends Commissioner Slaughter, asserting that the President's removal was unlawful and that existing laws ensure important agency independence. The discussion dives into agency functions, legal precedents, and the implications for future governance.
Ask episode
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
INSIGHT

Humphrey's Executor Is An Outlier

  • General Sauer argued Humphrey's Executor is an indefensible outlier that should be overruled to restore presidential removal authority.
  • He claimed modern administrative expansion makes presidential supervision vital to democratic accountability.
INSIGHT

Removal Decisions Belong To Politics

  • General Sauer asserted no permissible removal restrictions exist for principal officers wielding executive power.
  • He maintained removal disputes belong to the political process, not judicial review.
INSIGHT

Sever Removal Clauses, Don't Destroy Agencies

  • The Solicitor argued multi-member agencies like the FTC exercise quintessential executive functions such as rulemaking and enforcement.
  • He suggested severing removal restrictions, not dismantling agencies, aligns with precedent like Free Enterprise Fund.
Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode
Get the app