For those of you who are French deficient (no judgment, I promise😇), the title of this post is: “I am the State… so let’s go after the King.
FYI, “L'État, c'est” moi is attributed to King Louis XIV of France:
Historical Note
It was allegedly said on 13 April 1655 before the Parlement of Paris.[1][2] It is supposed to assert the primacy of the royal authority in a context of defiance with the Parlement, which contests royal edicts taken in lit de justice on 20 March 1655.[3] The phrase symbolizes absolute monarchy and absolutism.
Let’s start with a bit of a legal recap:
On July 1, 2024, in Trump v. U.S., the Supreme Court ruled - in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines - that “presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed as president within their core constitutional purview, at least presumptive immunity for official acts within the outer perimeter of their official responsibility, and no immunity for unofficial acts. In her dissent, Justice Soia Sotomayor put it succinctly: "The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."
Backing up a bit, over the years, Congress has created “independent” agencies/commission within the overseen by the executive branch. One of the key means of keeping these agencies “independent” was congress putting limitations on the ability of the executive branch (i.e., the President) to fire leaders/board members of these agencies without “cause”. In the case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States in 1935, the Supreme Court enunciated 3 key legal principles: 1. Presidents could not remove commissioners except for statutory reasons (For-cause removal protection), 2. Agencies performing quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial-like functions could be insulated from direct executive control (Independent agencies), and 3. Congress has the authority to structure agencies independently while maintaining the President’s executive authority over purely executive officers (Separation of powers).
Fast forwarding back to present day madness, on June 29, 2026, SCOTUS - in another 6-3 decision split along ideological lines - ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that the president had the power to remove independent agency heads at will, overturning Humphrey's Executor. The only exception to this are the members of the Federal Reserve Board, as determined by Trump v. Cook decided the same day, due to the significant impact the Board has on the U.S. economy.
In essence, in Trump v. Slaughter, SCOTUS ruled that one person - the President - has authority over the entire operations of the federal government (except the Federal Reserve because… reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution).
But, generally, we would expect that with authority comes responsibility. We all get it when - in the movie Spiderman - Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker, aka Spiderman, that “with great power comes great responsibility”. Of course, SCOTUS ruled in Trump v. US - unbelievably - that the President cannot be held responsible for actual criminal activity if it is done in the context of the President’s “official duties” because… reasons that have nothing to do with the Constitution.
So what’s a country that is nominally built on the rule of law to do?
Of course we should fight to overturn these rulings. To reform the Supreme Court. To pass laws that nullify the impacts of the noxious SOCUTS rulings. Vut that takes time.
What do we do NOW? Well, what if the opposition to “rule-by-fiat” goes to court to hold responsible the person SCOTUS decided had sole authority over the entire operations of the federal government? What if the opposition used Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. U.S. to hold the President responsible for actions of the Executive branch that fall outside “official duties”?
This is exactly what Judge Kathleen Williams did the other day in Trump v. IRS. Judge Williams:
Read through emptywheel’s entire thread to learn more. Essentially, as emptywheel writes, “Which is to say this opinion [by Judge Williams] hoists Trump, John Roberts, and Russ Vought by their own petards.”
SCOTUS has ruled that the President alone bears ultimate responsibility for the actions of the federal government. Well, let’s go after the President for the illegal actions of others under his authority that are outside “official duties”. SCOTUS never fully defined “official duties” in Trump v. U.S. Let’s help them figure out what that actually means by going after the President for the actions of ICE and for taking bribes (the Emoluments Clause”) and for any other potentially unconstitutional or illegal actions of his subordinates. MAKE THEM PLAY DEFENSE. Make SCOTUS define “official duties”. Keep Trump’s (and his crony’s) blatant illegality in the news.
No - this is not the ultimate solution, and it isn’t a perfect response to SCOTUS by any means.
To paraphrase Uncle Ben, the aggressive attempt to seize power for one person demands aggressive actions to defend democracy.
