Surely this order already prejudices the case—if SCOTUS will allow Rebecca Slaughter to be continued to be fired … then of course, the law must be wrong. Otherwise, why not put this obviously incorrect move on hold?
Addendum: Donald Trump is only a (bloated) figurehead. His white supporters fear becoming a minority; this ultra conservative unrest has been keeping - a cold war cold dish - since Appomattox.
He doesn’t need blackmail! Since his (blatant) Citizens United - and probably before - John Roberts has guided his court to eschew justice for severely partisan AND ultra regressive opinions.
We are in a very bad place. The majority of this court is hellbent on allowing a dictatorship. And I don't see how we will get out of it. It's all so very profoundly depressing.
The Supreme Court is hellbent on losing their relevance every time they side with Trump they become more and more irrelevant they should all just resign and give Trump the Country!
This ruling along with the other Shadow Docket rulings, the Colorado and the Trump immunity rulings are all part of the Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society/Project 2025 coup d'é·tat.
I liked your analysis of the Supreme Court, but I think do yourself and your readers disservice when you refer to the six justices other than Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomoyor as "conservative justices" -- they are not.
A genuine conservative judge is more like Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, are extremist, radical, supporters of Project 2025.
I don’t understand this criticism because I did not say that.
The only time I referenced the word “conservative,” it was referencing the “conservative majority” over the past 15 years. And I think that is fine in describing a long-time project of the court.
I would quibble with that a bit, because it is too absolutist and almost diminishes the harm of the longer-term project, but it is why I intentionally only used the political appointment when referring to the current court.
The precise context in this case is merely a "detail" with respect to parsing. Over the last 15 years, the Supreme Court's majority is on a mission to undermine the will of the majority. See, this excellent article by Jill Lepore:
The last thing I want to do is to agitate you. You are an important intellectual resource in the fight to defend our Constitution and legal system against usurpers bankrolled by billionaires.
The issue at hand is largely one of semantics and nomenclature. I believe it is a mistake to describe as “Conservative” those judges who act to undermine the fruits of (i) the New Deal and (ii) the Great Society. In doing so, they are in essence staging a judicial coup against the American consensus—and against the administrative state, which, given congressional gridlock, is essential for informed decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act. They lack genuine popular support for their actions, but Citizens United combined with gerrymandering have allowed these preferences to translate into durable legislative and judicial majorities.
(i) Signature New Deal Legislation
Social Security Act of 1935 – Established old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and aid to dependent children. Widely regarded as the crown jewel of the New Deal.
National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933 – Attempted to stabilize industry, guarantee workers’ rights to unionize, and set fair labor standards (struck down in 1935).
Glass–Steagall Banking Act of 1933 – Created the FDIC and separated commercial from investment banking to stabilize the financial system.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 – Established minimum wage, maximum hours, and restrictions on child labor.
(ii) Signature Great Society Legislation
Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Outlawed segregation and discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and federally funded programs.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Outlawed discriminatory voting practices and authorized federal oversight of elections in states with histories of suppression.
Medicare and Medicaid (1965, under the Social Security Amendments) – Created government health insurance for seniors (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 – Provided federal funding to public schools, particularly for disadvantaged students.
Higher Education Act of 1965 – Expanded federal aid to universities and students, including scholarships and student loans.
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 – Launched the “War on Poverty,” creating Job Corps, Head Start, and other programs.
To call judges “Conservative” when they work to dismantle this architecture of rights and protections is not simply a poor shorthand; it has a George Orwell–style Newspeak effect. It normalizes the abnormal and lends a veneer of legitimacy to efforts that undermine the foundations of modern American governance.
We must press journalists to be more exacting in their language. Rachel Cohen (formerly of Skadden Arps, now on Legal AF and Planting Trees) often emphasizes this point. The Meidas Touch Network’s choice to use the phrase “Trump Regime” instead of “Trump Administration” may strike some as too pointed, but it reflects a refusal to legitimize what is, with each passing day, increasingly illegitimate.
I was trained as a young lawyer more than 35 years ago to assume that opposing counsel would misquote or take words out of context whenever it suited their purposes. That habit of mind has stayed with me. It is why I resist conceding linguistic ground in ways that empower those who seek to erode democratic governance.
I remain a big fan of your work. I hope you will consider my concern not as a quibble, but as a reminder that our words matter, and that accuracy in language is a critical front in the fight we are waging.
Remember those melodramatic silent movies in which the heroine is gagged and bound to the railroad tracks and the train is coming around the bend, closer and closer? Like the law (and the people who depend on its integrity) bound and gagged, to allow the huffing, puffing tyrant train to finish it (and us) off. I can only imagine how the 3 dissenting justices feel, as they record, over and over and over, the corrupt malfeasance of the majority compared to what the law demands. The madness of SCOTUS itself destroying the rule of law on the "shadow docket" with nary a word of explanation...
This country is slowly but inexorably rolling out all the oppressive instrumentalities of a dictatorship. While there are many displays of judicial courage by lower court federal judges, once these acts of bravery to defend our democratic ideals percolate up to the Supreme Court, Trump's admirers there routinely grind them down and toss them into the dumpster.
There is an old anecdote attributed to Chief Justice John Marshall that goes along the lines of "This is my decision. Justice Story will furnish the authorities." And so it is with "The Trump Justices" on the Supreme Court. They first decide upon the decision they want the Court to reach and then sick their law clerks on ferreting out cases that they twist and contort to give them the appearance of supporting their preconceived decisions.
Would Congress have created these independent agencies and given them vast power if not for the precedent in Humphrey's Executor? I highly doubt it. No one thinks any president, let alone an ignorant putz like Trump, should decide about vaccine safety or the granting of TV licenses, especially when the president is beyond the reach of the criminal law when he takes bribes in such core executive functions.
Do John Roberts and the Fash Five plan to strike down the statutes authorizing independent agencies in their entirety? Because otherwise this is just the grant of enormous power to the morons wrecking our General Welfare and our Common Defence.
I suppose there is no practicable power to in fact faithfully execute the laws that the president will not, in a scenario like this; i.e., for the commissioner to continue in her position regardless... Our constitution seems rather brittle right now.
Chris, concerning the Separation of Powers, is that not the SCOTUS amending the ACTUAL Constitution?
Congressional law, I’m guessing, would be asking the same.
Scalia made very clear that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and laws but does not make law or amendment the Constitution.
Perhaps that’s what you said? I feel the same with the immunity ruling as what was there to interpret?
I know Roberts hung his hat on the concurrence of Justice Jackson in Youngstown Tube & Sheet which misconstrues a Justice’s intent when that same Justice sat in judgment of truth to power in the Nuremberg Trials.
I believe it was CASA where ACB questioned whether the Court has jurisdiction or authority to do “a thing” I’m sorry, I can’t remember the exact thing, yet now they apparently feel they do?
I have a huge fear in all of this but I’ll keep it there for now.
Any insight would be appreciated…from anyone who has the ability as certainly don’t!!
So can we when we regain Congress majority as a people merrily make The Trump impeached in effect before we make it so? That's what they're approving is it not? Horse before Cart. Yes?
History will not be kind to John Roberts! He and his Federalist colleagues are complicit in destroying the rule of law in the United States. Abandoning stare decisis effectively abandoned their pledge to uphold the Constitution. A multitude of decisions, many based on the questionable principle of "originalism," are contrary to the intent of the Founders of this country. Some of their decisions are just dishonest, e.g., Dobbs and Citizens United. Their treatment of the "shadow" docket indicts all six of them. Their treatment of the 4th Amendment is sufficient to impeach each of them.
Surely this order already prejudices the case—if SCOTUS will allow Rebecca Slaughter to be continued to be fired … then of course, the law must be wrong. Otherwise, why not put this obviously incorrect move on hold?
What does Trump have on these justices? (And the sycophant Republicans in Congress as well?)
Addendum: Donald Trump is only a (bloated) figurehead. His white supporters fear becoming a minority; this ultra conservative unrest has been keeping - a cold war cold dish - since Appomattox.
He doesn’t need blackmail! Since his (blatant) Citizens United - and probably before - John Roberts has guided his court to eschew justice for severely partisan AND ultra regressive opinions.
Thank you. The ruling is appalling and outrageous.
We are in a very bad place. The majority of this court is hellbent on allowing a dictatorship. And I don't see how we will get out of it. It's all so very profoundly depressing.
The Supreme Court is hellbent on losing their relevance every time they side with Trump they become more and more irrelevant they should all just resign and give Trump the Country!
There are still perks to be extorted from well-heeled interests, so such an action would be against their personal interests.
You mean the ones loyal to Project 2025? There are three wonderful judges there.
This ruling along with the other Shadow Docket rulings, the Colorado and the Trump immunity rulings are all part of the Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society/Project 2025 coup d'é·tat.
Our only hopes are the lower courts continue to uphold the Law as best they can (given the Extreme Court constraints), we take back Congress in 2026 and thereafter legislate constraints on both the Extreme Court and the Executive Branch. Support Adam Schiff’s Protecting Our Democracy Act https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-reintroduces-his-landmark-proposal-to-protect-democracy-close-legal-loopholes-enabling-widespread-abuses-of-presidential-power/
And precedence? Upon further consideration - and a survey of Dark Ages mores - egregious!
Betrayal.
I liked your analysis of the Supreme Court, but I think do yourself and your readers disservice when you refer to the six justices other than Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomoyor as "conservative justices" -- they are not.
A genuine conservative judge is more like Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, are extremist, radical, supporters of Project 2025.
I don’t understand this criticism because I did not say that.
The only time I referenced the word “conservative,” it was referencing the “conservative majority” over the past 15 years. And I think that is fine in describing a long-time project of the court.
Over those 15 years, the court has ceased to be conservative in any meaningful way of the term and be one a radical right wing political body.
I would quibble with that a bit, because it is too absolutist and almost diminishes the harm of the longer-term project, but it is why I intentionally only used the political appointment when referring to the current court.
Chris,
The precise context in this case is merely a "detail" with respect to parsing. Over the last 15 years, the Supreme Court's majority is on a mission to undermine the will of the majority. See, this excellent article by Jill Lepore:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/10/constitutional-originalism-amendment/683961/
https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2025/09/the-atlantics-october-cover-jill-lepore-amend-it/684155/
BTW You and your readers might like my free Substack at https://ethansburger.substack.com
Best wishes from a reader.
ESB
Ethan, you said that I said something I didn’t say. That’s the problem here. I don’t need to read other things, that I’ve already read, to know that.
Chris,
The last thing I want to do is to agitate you. You are an important intellectual resource in the fight to defend our Constitution and legal system against usurpers bankrolled by billionaires.
The issue at hand is largely one of semantics and nomenclature. I believe it is a mistake to describe as “Conservative” those judges who act to undermine the fruits of (i) the New Deal and (ii) the Great Society. In doing so, they are in essence staging a judicial coup against the American consensus—and against the administrative state, which, given congressional gridlock, is essential for informed decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act. They lack genuine popular support for their actions, but Citizens United combined with gerrymandering have allowed these preferences to translate into durable legislative and judicial majorities.
(i) Signature New Deal Legislation
Social Security Act of 1935 – Established old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, and aid to dependent children. Widely regarded as the crown jewel of the New Deal.
National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933 – Attempted to stabilize industry, guarantee workers’ rights to unionize, and set fair labor standards (struck down in 1935).
Glass–Steagall Banking Act of 1933 – Created the FDIC and separated commercial from investment banking to stabilize the financial system.
Wagner Act (National Labor Relations Act) of 1935 – Guaranteed collective bargaining rights, strengthening organized labor.
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 – Established minimum wage, maximum hours, and restrictions on child labor.
(ii) Signature Great Society Legislation
Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Outlawed segregation and discrimination in public accommodations, employment, and federally funded programs.
Voting Rights Act of 1965 – Outlawed discriminatory voting practices and authorized federal oversight of elections in states with histories of suppression.
Medicare and Medicaid (1965, under the Social Security Amendments) – Created government health insurance for seniors (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid).
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 – Provided federal funding to public schools, particularly for disadvantaged students.
Higher Education Act of 1965 – Expanded federal aid to universities and students, including scholarships and student loans.
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 – Launched the “War on Poverty,” creating Job Corps, Head Start, and other programs.
To call judges “Conservative” when they work to dismantle this architecture of rights and protections is not simply a poor shorthand; it has a George Orwell–style Newspeak effect. It normalizes the abnormal and lends a veneer of legitimacy to efforts that undermine the foundations of modern American governance.
We must press journalists to be more exacting in their language. Rachel Cohen (formerly of Skadden Arps, now on Legal AF and Planting Trees) often emphasizes this point. The Meidas Touch Network’s choice to use the phrase “Trump Regime” instead of “Trump Administration” may strike some as too pointed, but it reflects a refusal to legitimize what is, with each passing day, increasingly illegitimate.
I was trained as a young lawyer more than 35 years ago to assume that opposing counsel would misquote or take words out of context whenever it suited their purposes. That habit of mind has stayed with me. It is why I resist conceding linguistic ground in ways that empower those who seek to erode democratic governance.
I remain a big fan of your work. I hope you will consider my concern not as a quibble, but as a reminder that our words matter, and that accuracy in language is a critical front in the fight we are waging.
Ethan
Remember those melodramatic silent movies in which the heroine is gagged and bound to the railroad tracks and the train is coming around the bend, closer and closer? Like the law (and the people who depend on its integrity) bound and gagged, to allow the huffing, puffing tyrant train to finish it (and us) off. I can only imagine how the 3 dissenting justices feel, as they record, over and over and over, the corrupt malfeasance of the majority compared to what the law demands. The madness of SCOTUS itself destroying the rule of law on the "shadow docket" with nary a word of explanation...
This country is slowly but inexorably rolling out all the oppressive instrumentalities of a dictatorship. While there are many displays of judicial courage by lower court federal judges, once these acts of bravery to defend our democratic ideals percolate up to the Supreme Court, Trump's admirers there routinely grind them down and toss them into the dumpster.
There is an old anecdote attributed to Chief Justice John Marshall that goes along the lines of "This is my decision. Justice Story will furnish the authorities." And so it is with "The Trump Justices" on the Supreme Court. They first decide upon the decision they want the Court to reach and then sick their law clerks on ferreting out cases that they twist and contort to give them the appearance of supporting their preconceived decisions.
Mixed metaphor apologies, but the Roberts court has turned the ‘shadow docket’ into a wrecking ball. Brazen, arrogant, and appalling.
Would Congress have created these independent agencies and given them vast power if not for the precedent in Humphrey's Executor? I highly doubt it. No one thinks any president, let alone an ignorant putz like Trump, should decide about vaccine safety or the granting of TV licenses, especially when the president is beyond the reach of the criminal law when he takes bribes in such core executive functions.
Do John Roberts and the Fash Five plan to strike down the statutes authorizing independent agencies in their entirety? Because otherwise this is just the grant of enormous power to the morons wrecking our General Welfare and our Common Defence.
I suppose there is no practicable power to in fact faithfully execute the laws that the president will not, in a scenario like this; i.e., for the commissioner to continue in her position regardless... Our constitution seems rather brittle right now.
Chris, concerning the Separation of Powers, is that not the SCOTUS amending the ACTUAL Constitution?
Congressional law, I’m guessing, would be asking the same.
Scalia made very clear that the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and laws but does not make law or amendment the Constitution.
Perhaps that’s what you said? I feel the same with the immunity ruling as what was there to interpret?
I know Roberts hung his hat on the concurrence of Justice Jackson in Youngstown Tube & Sheet which misconstrues a Justice’s intent when that same Justice sat in judgment of truth to power in the Nuremberg Trials.
I believe it was CASA where ACB questioned whether the Court has jurisdiction or authority to do “a thing” I’m sorry, I can’t remember the exact thing, yet now they apparently feel they do?
I have a huge fear in all of this but I’ll keep it there for now.
Any insight would be appreciated…from anyone who has the ability as certainly don’t!!
Thank you!!!
So can we when we regain Congress majority as a people merrily make The Trump impeached in effect before we make it so? That's what they're approving is it not? Horse before Cart. Yes?
History will not be kind to John Roberts! He and his Federalist colleagues are complicit in destroying the rule of law in the United States. Abandoning stare decisis effectively abandoned their pledge to uphold the Constitution. A multitude of decisions, many based on the questionable principle of "originalism," are contrary to the intent of the Founders of this country. Some of their decisions are just dishonest, e.g., Dobbs and Citizens United. Their treatment of the "shadow" docket indicts all six of them. Their treatment of the 4th Amendment is sufficient to impeach each of them.