Morrison v. Olson and the triumph of the unitary executive theory

SCOTUS Blog ^ | 12/03/2025 | Erwin Chemerinsky

[TexasKamaAina]

Rarely has a solo dissent in a Supreme Court case eventually triumphed, but that is likely to happen as a majority of the justices appear poised to accept the “unitary executive theory” of presidential power. This is the view that the president has authority over the entire executive branch of government, including the ability to fire heads of agencies and any such government employees.

[TexasKamaAina]

The idea that a president is responsible for the entire executive branch seems glaringly obvious to me.

[marktwain]

The Constitution appears to set the president as absolute head of the executive branch...

[Tell It Right]

My Cliff notes version of the article:

The current Trump v Slaughter and Trump v Cook cases will probably result in SCOTUS saying Trump had the authority to fire them. Nothing new. As the article states, SCOTUS recently already decided the same in Trump v Wilcox and also in Trump v Boyle. The writer's not happy about it, but that's the details.

So the stare decisis from Morrison v Olson (1988) of SCOTUS saying the Prez can't unilaterally fire some high level people in the Execute Branch --- that's no longer relevant. IMHO it's another example of stare decisis losing ground to the Constitution's Article II, which is how it should be.

[marktwain]

So, Ideologically Progressive judges rejected the unitary executive language when the Progressives controlled unelected administrative functions.

[Wuli]

Congress - under Progressive and Leftist influence over the last century - has attempted an end-run around the Constitution.

Unable to get a Constitutional amendment creating a fourth independent branch of government, they tried to insulate the executive branch agencies of the federal government from as much executive control as possible, even lovingly liking to refer to them as “independent” agencies and how Presidents should not mess with their “independence”.

Does the Constitution describe, mandate or lay out the design of such an “independent” fourth branch of government? Of course not.

And when directly cutting the President off from control of the federal bureaucracy, Congress attempted the next best thing - legislatively tying the executives hands in knots with mandated “administrative procedures” in order to effectuate executive control - a de facto establishment of an unauthorized fourth branch.

What is behind all the Dims cries about “protecting democracy” or someone being a “threat to democracy”? It has zero to do with “democracy”; its about THEIR beloved bureaucracy.

[fwdude]

The problem is that the Executive Branch has metastasized into something massive that the founders never even dreamed would happen, developing a life of it’s own apart from the President.

[Dr. Franklin]

In Pennsylvania, the state constitution created a single executive department, but specifically mentions other executive officers other than the governor. That leads to some confusion as to who has what power, i.e., the state AG, (who is elected and can be a different party from the governor). represents the Commonwealth in court, not the governor. Because SCOPA does not recognize a unitary executive branch, suits involving PA executive officers and agencies can be tried like each one is a separate legal entity, which is a PITA.

[con-surf-ative]

Erwin Chemerensky is a notoriously left wing constitutional law professor in California. Of course he calls this obvious constitutional principle “rare” or “unprecedented”.

The Federal government has so far departed from original principles that it is unrecognizable as the limited government conceived by the founding fathers. They would be absolutely dumbfounded at the distortion of their intentions.

[Mathews]

I got $50 says not one dem judge will say a word about this...

[Georgia Girl 2]

A ten year old would be able to interpret the Constitution to identify the President as having total authority over the executive branch. 🙄

[UnwashedPeasant]

“The buck stops here.”
— Harry Truman

[lastchance]

Well, Duh. Which means I do so agree with you.

[G Larry]

"...Executive Branch has metastasized into something massive..."

Precisely why Trump should have the authority to fire them.

[SunkenCiv]

• Oops! Prestigious Science Journal Retracts Climate Study That Predicted Imminent Economic Catastrophe [12/04/2025]
  • Even "Progressives" Are Now Allowed To Notice That New York's Climate Plans Are Crumbling [12/04/2025]
  • Trump wants to reduce gas mileage requirements. allow cheap trucks, "kei" cars. [12/04/2025]
• VANITY: Congress Needs to Censure Sen. Mark Warner -- This Crossed the Constitutional Line [12/04/2025]
  • Oh My: Dem Sen. Mark Warner's Troubling Remarks About Pres. Trump and the Military [12/04/2025]
• The Supreme Court has permitted Texas to keep its newly redistricted, GOP-favorable congressional map in 2026 [12/04/2025]
  • Democrats push forward with 2026 redistricting efforts in Virginia [12/04/2025]
  • Supreme Court Clears Texas '26 Map in Huge Win for GOP [12/04/2025]
• The midterms are looming -- and the specter of death for a representative republic [12/04/2025]
  • TDS: With Trump's focus abroad, Republicans push for midterms pivot to economy [12/04/2025]
• Libertarian Party of Florida Seeking 2026 Annual Convention Theme Submissions [12/04/2025]
  • The left's political phishing [12/04/2025]
• Nigel Farage erupts as Keir Starmer cancels more elections next year [12/04/2025]
  • Democrats Would Like To Suppress Free Speech The Way Britain Does [12/04/2025]
• California CEO accused of $7M health care fraud arrested at SFO while trying to fly to Nigeria [12/04/2025]
  • Fresno CEO charged with defrauding VA of $7 million in care funds meant for veterans [12/04/2025]
  • CEO arrested at SFO before boarding international flight [12/04/2025]
• A Newsom Nihilist Nomination? [12/04/2025]