A Decaying Husk
On Monday, December 8, 2025, six conservative justices sat in the Supreme Court chamber. Marble columns, red velvet curtains, the weight of two centuries pressing down. They signaled they were ready to hand the president unchecked power over the federal government.
The case was Trump v. Slaughter. At stake: whether a president can fire the heads of independent federal agencies for any reason, or no reason at all. For ninety years, the answer has been no. The six-justice conservative majority appeared ready to change it to yes.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer stood at the lectern and called ninety years of constitutional protection a “decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions.” Justice Neil Gorsuch called the precedent “poorly reasoned.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor saw what was happening. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government,” she told Sauer.
Justice Elena Kagan saw it too. “Once you’re down this road,” she warned, “it’s a little bit hard to see how you stop.”
The six conservative justices appeared unmoved.
A decaying husk. That is what they want you to believe. An empty shell from another era. Something you can throw away.
But here is what they did not tell you: that husk was built on a body. Every guardrail in this country is a grave marker. Every protection you have exists because somebody bled out first.
The Bodies That Built the Guardrails
July 2, 1881. A train station in Washington, D.C.
Charles Guiteau shot President James Garfield twice in the back. He had wanted a government job, a diplomatic post in Paris. He believed he had earned it. When he didn’t get it, he bought a .44 revolver with an ivory handle. He chose that one because he thought it would look better in a museum.
This was not madness. This was the spoils system working exactly as designed. Loyalty was currency. Competence was optional. Merit was invisible. Guiteau had campaigned for Garfield. He wanted his reward.
Garfield lingered for eighty days while doctors probed his wound with unwashed hands. The bullet probably would not have killed him. The infections did.
The body produced the protection. In 1883, Congress passed the Pendleton Act, the first law admitting that you shouldn’t have to die to stop a president from handing the government to his friends.
Fifty years later, another president tried to tear that protection down. His name was Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
FDR wanted his people in every agency, answering to him. William Humphrey sat on the Federal Trade Commission. He was a conservative, a Hoover appointee, and he did not like the New Deal. The law said commissioners could only be removed for cause. Humphrey was doing his job fine. He just disagreed with Roosevelt.
So FDR wrote him a letter: “I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together.”
The president was saying: I want to fire you because you disagree with me.
Humphrey refused to resign. Roosevelt fired him anyway. Humphrey fought back in court, but his health was failing. Five months later, he died.
Another body. Another protection.
His estate continued the lawsuit. And in 1935, the Supreme Court ruled. Unanimously. Nine to zero. Against Franklin Roosevelt.
The case was called Humphrey’s Executor. It became the foundation for independent federal agencies: the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and dozens more. Some positions require independence from political pressure. Even the most popular president cannot fire officials simply because they disagree with him.
For ninety years, it stood.
The Irony They Hope You Miss
The protection that conservatives now want to destroy was forged to stop FDR, the most transformative progressive president in American history. The guardrail was not invented to stop authoritarians. It was invented to stop the New Deal.
And FDR was furious. He tried to pack the Supreme Court. That scheme failed too.
The protections held. And held. And held.
This is the thing about guardrails. They do not check only your enemies. They check everyone. That is what makes them guardrails.
The language in Trump’s letter firing FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was almost identical to FDR’s letter to Humphrey: “Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”
Same argument. Same power grab. Ninety years apart.
What Comes Next
Now picture it working.
A president furious about interest rates fires the Federal Reserve chair and replaces him with a loyalist who will juice the economy before an election. A president facing investigation fires the SEC commissioners who might look at his donors. A president who hates unions fires the NLRB members until no organizing vote ever succeeds again. A president who thinks discrimination is a myth fires the EEOC commissioners until no workplace civil rights case ever moves forward. A president who wants to control the airwaves fires the FCC commissioners who won’t let him.
None of that is hypothetical. That is the exact power being argued for in that marble room.
The precedent is not the point. The precedent is the scar tissue.
The wound was Garfield bleeding out in a train station. The wound was a system so corrupt that disagreement meant termination and loyalty outweighed competence.
Every protection we have was built on a body.
They are dismantling the protections. They are betting you forgot why they were built.
The spoils system did not end because people got smarter. It ended because a president died. The limit on executive power did not emerge from constitutional theory. It emerged because even FDR—beloved, transformative FDR—tried to grab too much.
And the Court said no.
Now the Court is preparing to say yes.
A decaying husk.
That is what the Solicitor General called it Monday, standing in that marble chamber, asking six justices to tear down what took a century and two bodies to build.
But husks protect the grain. They are the armor that lets something vital survive.
When you strip away the husk, you do not get freedom. You get exposure.
The people calling this a husk are not trying to free you. They are trying to free themselves—from the last places where anyone can tell them no.
NOTES & SOURCES
Supreme Court Arguments, December 8, 2025
Trump v. Slaughter oral arguments; Sauer: “decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions”; Gorsuch: “poorly reasoned” CBS News (December 8, 2025)__ __https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-arguments-trump-firing-ftc-commissioner/
Sotomayor: “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government”; Kagan: “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little bit hard to see how you stop” NPR (December 8, 2025)__ __https://www.npr.org/2025/12/08/nx-s1-5626876/supreme-court-trump-ftc-unitary-executive
Six conservative justices signaled support for Trump’s position; case background NBC News (December 8, 2025)__ __https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/trumps-battle-independent-agencies-back-supreme-court-rcna247407
Trump v. Slaughter explainer; Humphrey’s Executor background SCOTUSblog (December 3, 2025)__ __https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/trump-v-slaughter-an-explainer/
Garfield Assassination & Spoils System
Charles Guiteau; “I am a Stalwart of the Stalwarts! Arthur is president now!”; July 2, 1881; Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station National Archives (Prologue Magazine, Fall 2016)__ __https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2016/fall/guiteau
Guiteau wanted Paris consulship; believed his campaign speech won election; chose ivory-handled British Bulldog revolver for museum display National Park Service__ __https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-federal-civil-service-and-the-death-of-president-james-a-garfield.htm
Garfield lingered 80 days; doctors probed wound with unwashed hands; infections killed him Ohio State University Origins__ __https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/july-2016-assassination-president-garfield-135-years-ago
Pendleton Act (1883)
First major civil service reform; merit-based hiring; signed by Chester Arthur National Archives__ __https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/pendleton-act
FDR & William Humphrey
FDR letter to Humphrey: “I do not feel that your mind and my mind go along together on either the policies or the administering of the Federal Trade Commission” Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935)__ __https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/
Humphrey was Hoover appointee; refused to resign; died February 1934 Oyez__ __https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/295us602
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
9-0 ruling against FDR; established independence of multi-member agencies; FTC commissioners can only be removed for cause Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute_https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/295/602
Trump Firing Rebecca Slaughter
Trump letter: “Your continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities”; fired March 2025 Democracy Docket (December 8, 2025)__ __https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/supreme-court-trump-ftc-slaughter-dismissal-independent-agencies/
Slaughter unanimously confirmed twice (Trump nomination, Biden renomination) ABC News (December 8, 2025)__ __https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/landmark-case-supreme-court-rule-trumps-bid-control/story?id=128073464
FDR Court-Packing Scheme
1937 Judicial Procedures Reform Bill; failed National Constitution Center__ https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2
Shame on the Supremes! They are creating an omnipotent monster that will destroy us. Kiss the economy goodbye when Trump gets his hands on interest rates.
This piece is lyrical and spot on. This court is stripping away our protections like it's forgotten their purpose.