The Unitary Executive, the Constitution, and the Trajectory of the Supreme Court’s Approach to the Removal Power

Dados Bibliográficos

ID12772575
AutoresJoseph Karol Natali (0009-0007-9722-4789, autor correspondente)
Ano2025
Páginas1-17
Data de publicação2025-10-28
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPerspectives on Politics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1537-5927 • E-ISSN: 1541-0986
EditoraCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1537592725102351
OpenAlexW4415615837
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas19

In this reflection, I seek to determine to what degree Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Collins et al. v. Yellen genuinely indicate a final legal sanctioning of the unitary theory, and thus precipitate a serious and significant disruption in both the political status quo and the stability of the constitutional system of separated powers. After a rigorous analysis of the trajectory of the court’s approach to the removal power, I find that there are four potential outcomes for the upcoming clashes between the Trump administration and several recently removed independent agency heads. Each of these potential outcomes have important constitutional implications, especially for the role of the Supreme Court in the Constitution’s separation-of-powers system. Understanding these constitutional implications will help to prepare political scientists to analyze and interpret future judicial and executive behavior