Advisory Opinions Slaughter at SCOTUS: Reaganite Ends by Roosevelt Means
Dec 8, 2025
In this insightful discussion, Adam White, a Senior Fellow at AEI and expert on administrative-state theory, joins Supreme Court reporter Amy Howe to explore the implications of *Slaughter v. United States*. They delve into the surprising lack of focus on the FTC during arguments and highlight Justice Gorsuch's views on executive power. Amy shares her behind-the-scenes observations of the courtroom dynamics, while the hosts discuss the potential outcomes for Humphrey's executor and the evolving nature of the administrative state, bridging Reaganite ideals with Rooseveltian methods.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Court Could Narrowly Uphold Firing
- The court may uphold President Trump's firing without fully overturning Humphrey's Executor by treating modern agencies as different.
- Oral argument lacked deep inquiry into how the current FTC differs from the 1935 model, surprising Adam White.
Slippery Slopes Framed The Debate
- Justices traded competing slippery-slope hypotheticals about consequences of either upholding or undoing independent agencies.
- Justice Gorsuch emphasized a broader project of restoring clearer separation-of-powers boxes for all branches.
Courtroom Felt Long And Repetitive
- Amy Howe described the argument as sleepy and repetitive, fit for a shorter session.
- She also noted frequent overlapping questions with multiple justices jumping in during colloquies.