What interests me most about the Supreme Court’s telegraphed decision ending independent agencies is the ease with which they discard their governing theories (unitary executive) when the results are ones they find unpleasant (ending the independence Federal Reserve). Let’s make a note in passing that as long as they were going to make this disastrous decision, I’m glad they were also hypocrites and exempted (or suggest they are going to exempt) the Federal Reserve because that would have made it even worse.
It’s very much of a piece with 2024’s presidential immunity decision. It is demonstrably the case the U.S. Constitution does not provide the President with any immunity from prosecution. You can argue this from absence (it literally doesn’t provide it); you can argue it from general logic, which is admittedly an inherently slippery kind of argument (no one is above the law); perhaps most convincingly you can argue by the fact that the constitution writers very much knew how to provide immunity where they believed it should exist and did so in the case of members of Congress (speech and debate clause). They knew how to do it and decided not to for Presidents. The most generous reading of the aptly-named Trump vs United States is that Roberts et al. decided as a matter of policy that such immunity should exist and therefore decided to create it. But it is entirely a 21st century creation with no basis whatsoever in the actual Constitution.
