Unitary executive theory: Difference between revisions

In recent years, the Supreme Court has expressed more support for the theory.<ref>{{Cite web |last= |first= |date= |title=List of court cases relevant to executive appointment and removal power |url=https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_court_cases_relevant_to_executive_appointment_and_removal_power|access-date=2024-08-05 |website=Ballotpedia |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Sitaraman|first=Ganesh|date=2020|title=The Political Economy of the Removal Power|journal=Harvard Law Review|volume=134|pages=380}}</ref> In ''[[Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]]'' and ''[[Collins v. Yellen]]'', the Court held that some attempts to curtail presidential removal power of agencies with a single director violate the [[Separation of powers under the United States Constitution|separation of powers]]. Justice Samuel Alito went so far as to write, "The Constitution prohibits even 'modest restrictions' on the President's power to remove the head of an agency with a single top officer." The Court reiterated that the only exceptions to the president's removal power were those precedents found in ''Humphrey's Executor'' and ''Morrison''.<ref name="reason decision">{{cite web | url = https://reason.com/2020/06/29/with-chief-in-charge-scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-and-eliminates-cfpb-independence/ | title = With Chief in Charge, SCOTUS Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law and Eliminates CFPB Independence | first = Jonathan | last = Adler | date = June 29, 2020 | access-date = August 5, 2024 | work = [[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] | archive-date = June 29, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200629232919/https://reason.com/2020/06/29/with-chief-in-charge-scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-and-eliminates-cfpb-independence/ | url-status = live }}</ref> The four justices appointed by a Democratic president dissented in ''Seila'', arguing that the constitution makes no such claims.<ref name=":252">{{Cite journal |last=Sitaraman |first=Ganesh |author-link=Ganesh Sitaraman |date=2020 |title=The Political Economy of the Removal Power |url=https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/134-Harv.-L.-Rev.-352.pdf |journal=Harvard Law Review |volume=134 |pages=380 |quote=Justice Kagan dissented from the constitutional analysis, along with the three other liberal Justices. In an opinion filled with sharp, cutting language, Justice Kagan protested that there was nothing neutral about the majority’s reasoning or its unitary executive theory of the separation of powers. She systematically argued that 'constitutional text, history, and precedent invalidate the majority’s thesis.' Justice Kagan even accused the majority of 'gerrymander[ing]' their 'made up' rule to strike down the CFPB’s independent structure. For a separation of powers case, this was about as bloody a fight as it gets.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |date=2020-06-29 |title=The Supreme Court's big decision on the CFPB and the "unitary executive," explained |url=https://www.vox.com/2020/6/29/21307083/supreme-court-cfpb-seila-law-chief-justice-john-roberts-unitary-executive |access-date=2024-08-05 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> ''Collins'' was a very similar case taken up the next year, and the precedent of ''Seila'' was applied to ''Collins'' in a 7−2 ruling.<ref>{{cite web |date=June 23, 2021 |title=U.S. Supreme Court bolsters presidential power over housing finance agency |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/23/us-supreme-court-bolsters-presidential-power-over-housing-finance-agency.html |agency=Reuters |accessdate=June 23, 2021 |work=[[CNBC]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite court|litigants=Collins v. Yellen |vol=594|reporter=U.S.|opinion=220|pinpoint=|court=|year=2021|url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-422}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |date=2020-06-29 |title=The Supreme Court's big decision on the CFPB and the "unitary executive," explained |url=https://www.vox.com/2020/6/29/21307083/supreme-court-cfpb-seila-law-chief-justice-john-roberts-unitary-executive |access-date=2024-08-06 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>