Story by (Bradenton Herald) Oct 26
University of Virginia law professor Caleb Nelson, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, has raised concerns about the Supreme Court's broadening interpretation of presidential power over federal agencies, particularly as the Court prepares to revisit Humphrey's Executor v. United States in its current term, with arguments scheduled for November.
Nelson contends that Congress should maintain authority to restrict the president's ability to dismiss agency officials, challenging the "unitary
It's a former clerk to Clarence Thomas Professor Nelson - he has the concerns
Nelson wrote, "More than one member warned against interpreting the Constitution in the expectation that all presidents would have the sterling character of George Washington."
He argued that historical debates from the founding era reveal no definitive agreement on presidential removal authority and cautioned that endorsing such power risks consolidating excessive control within the executive branch.
Nelson stated, "I am an originalist, and if the original meaning of the Constitution compelled this outcome, I would be inclined to agree that the Supreme Court should respect it until the Constitution is amended through the proper processes."
He urged, "In the face of such ambiguities, I hope that the justices will not act as if their hands are tied."
The discussion has gained urgency as the Court considers revisiting Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a landmark decision affirming Congress's right to protect independent agencies from political interference.
Another law professor has concerns - Professor Pildes
New York University law professor Richard H. Pildes commented, "If a highly respected originalist scholar like Professor Nelson, on whom the court relies frequently, denies that originalism supports the unitary executive theory, that inevitably raises serious questions about an originalist justification for the court's looming approach."