Debate Over Unitary Executive Theory Continues

The unitary executive theory (UET) posits that the president possesses the authority to dismiss any executive branch employee for any reason. Despite claims of originalist grounding, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown limited interest in historical examination, with conservative justices seemingly prioritizing complete presidential control.

Impact on Specific Decisions

Critics of the UET have often focused on insulating broad policy decisions from political influence. However, the most significant issues arise in different areas, particularly concerning case-by-case decisions. Politicizing decisions like merger approvals and broadcasting license grants has resulted in presidents wielding credible threats against entities that displease them.

Erosion of Internal Safeguards

Another critical effect relates to internal protections against government abuse. Agencies designed to safeguard government employees from arbitrary actions become ineffective when controlled by the president. This undermines protections against the politicization of the civil service, potentially jeopardizing the impartial application of laws and government adherence to regulations like the Clean Air Act.

Supreme Court Rhetoric and its Consequences

The rhetoric of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has amplified the concerns surrounding the UET. The Court’s assertion that the president embodies the entire executive branch, with all other officials acting as stand-ins, and that the president holds unique nationwide legitimacy, encourages presidents to leverage government power for political objectives.

Challenges to Norms and Past Events

A long-standing norm against presidential interference in criminal investigations and prosecutions is challenged by the UET. If Justice Department personnel are viewed as extensions of the president’s will, the rationale for presidential self-direction in such matters weakens. Recent events, such as actions taken against James Comey and Letitia James, illustrate potential consequences.

Lack of Reconsideration and Future Approaches

Despite the apparent flaws in the UET, there is limited evidence that Supreme Court conservatives are reassessing their positions. While an exception may be considered for the Federal Reserve, the broader trend suggests a willingness to allow presidential discretion to govern the government. New strategies are needed to ensure a government that implements laws rationally and impartially.