We will hear argument this morning in case 25332, Trump v. Slaughter.

General Sauer.

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, in CELA law, this Court held that the President's power to remove and thus supervise those who wield executive power on his behalf, follows from the text of Article 2, was settled by the

First Congress, and has been confirmed by precedent, including at least nine decisions of this

court from ex parte Hennon through Trump against United States.

Humphrey's executor stands as an indefensible outlier from that line of authority.

It's holding that federal

agencies can exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers that form no part of the

executive power has not withstood the test of time. That holding was gutted and refurbished

in Morrison, but this court correctly rejected the refurbished version as providing an amorphous

test with no limiting principle. Respondent now proposes a third update to Humphreys, which this

court has already rejected as making no logical or constitutional sense. Humphreys must be

overruled. It has become a decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions.

It was grievously wrong when decided, and cases from Morrison to Trump have thoroughly eroded its foundations.

The court has repudiated Humphrey's reasoning and confined it to its facts, but it continues to generate confusion in the lower courts,

and it continues to tempt Congress to erect at the heart of our government a headless fourth

branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control.

As Justice Thomas wrote in CELA law, Humphreys poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure

and as a result, the liberty of the American people.

And as CELA law held, the modern expansion of the federal bureaucracy

sharpens the court's duty to ensure that the executive branch is overseen by a president accountable to the people.

I welcome the Court's questions.

...