Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The Supreme Court Really Expects You to Take This Craven Horseshit Seriously - Jay Willis
Balls and Strikes SubstackIn a shadow docket decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s six Republican justices did the Constitution’s most special boy yet another favor. In an unsigned opinion in Trump v. Wilcox, the Court allowed President Donald Trump to fire two independent agency board members, despite the facts, as its opinion explicitly acknowledged, that (1) federal law prohibits presidents from firing them except for cause, and (2) Trump did not even attempt to provide one.
In Wilcox, the Court effectively ceded to Trump the power to overturn a century’s worth of its own precedent. As is so often the case when the Court does something this stupid and embarrassing, whoever wrote the opinion did not have the courage to put their name on it.
The case is a legal challenge brought by National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, two Biden appointees whom Trump attempted to fire earlier this year. Back in 1935, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States upheld Congress’s right to extend for-cause removal protections to officials like Wilcox and Harris, thus (somewhat) insulating them from political pressure. But the conservative justices have narrowed the scope of Humphrey’s Executor in recent years, carving out inventive exceptions to allow presidents to fire officials whom Congress sought to protect. The Trump administration has already said it wants the Court to get rid of Humphrey’s Executor altogether; on Thursday, the Court granted his wish.
The Wilcox majority would not agree with this characterization. They would say that their decision merely gets rid of a lower court order that had temporarily blocked Trump from firing Wilcox and Harris while their cases wind their way through the court system. The justices in the majority acknowledged that they are “likely” to side with the Trump administration once the case arrives on their regular docket. But, they continued, that question is “better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.”
This is, to use the legal terms of art, both dogshit reasoning and a horseshit conclusion. “Staying” an order that blocked a termination is nonsensical, because the effect of this decision is that Wilcox and Harris are, in fact, fired. The majority’s assertion that it did not “ultimately decide” the case is sort of like telling your significant other that you have decided to move out because you are “thinking about” breaking up: If you are using that language and taking these actions, it’s a wrap, regardless of whether you have managed to spit out the words just yet.
In Wilcox, the Court effectively ceded to Trump the power to overturn a century’s worth of its own precedent. As is so often the case when the Court does something this stupid and embarrassing, whoever wrote the opinion did not have the courage to put their name on it.
The case is a legal challenge brought by National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris, two Biden appointees whom Trump attempted to fire earlier this year. Back in 1935, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States upheld Congress’s right to extend for-cause removal protections to officials like Wilcox and Harris, thus (somewhat) insulating them from political pressure. But the conservative justices have narrowed the scope of Humphrey’s Executor in recent years, carving out inventive exceptions to allow presidents to fire officials whom Congress sought to protect. The Trump administration has already said it wants the Court to get rid of Humphrey’s Executor altogether; on Thursday, the Court granted his wish.
The Wilcox majority would not agree with this characterization. They would say that their decision merely gets rid of a lower court order that had temporarily blocked Trump from firing Wilcox and Harris while their cases wind their way through the court system. The justices in the majority acknowledged that they are “likely” to side with the Trump administration once the case arrives on their regular docket. But, they continued, that question is “better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.”
This is, to use the legal terms of art, both dogshit reasoning and a horseshit conclusion. “Staying” an order that blocked a termination is nonsensical, because the effect of this decision is that Wilcox and Harris are, in fact, fired. The majority’s assertion that it did not “ultimately decide” the case is sort of like telling your significant other that you have decided to move out because you are “thinking about” breaking up: If you are using that language and taking these actions, it’s a wrap, regardless of whether you have managed to spit out the words just yet.
One side effect of the fact that the Supreme Court's conservatives have the votes to do what they want: Their opinions are getting lazier and stupider than ever before ballsandstrikes.substack.com/p/the-suprem...
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2025-05-23T17:09:23.954Z
It is wild how little respect John Roberts and company have for you. A first-year law student would have been embarrassed to write yesterday's opinion, which is probably why none of the justices in the majority even put their names on it ballsandstrikes.substack.com/p/the-suprem...
— Jay Willis (@jaywillis.net) 2025-05-23T17:11:23.669Z
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
