🌡️ RollingBoil Daily - December 08, 2025
Today, the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority is hearing arguments that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power in American democracy—and not in your favor. At stake is whether a president can unilaterally fire commissioners from independent agencies like the FTC, SEC, and NLRB, transforming watchdogs meant to protect consumers, workers, and fair markets into political puppets answerable only to the Oval Office. Trump's legal team is arguing for sweeping executive authority that would demolish nearly a century of precedent designed to keep these agencies insulated from partisan whims. If they succeed, every protection you rely on—from workplace safety rules to consumer fraud enforcement—could become subject to the political winds of whoever occupies the White House.
This isn't just about bureaucratic structure or constitutional theory. This is about whether the agencies that investigate corporate monopolies, protect your retirement savings, and ensure safe working conditions can do their jobs without fear of being fired for holding powerful interests accountable. The implications are staggering: a green light for presidents to consolidate unprecedented control over the regulatory state, effectively ending the independence that allows these agencies to serve the public interest rather than political interests. We're tracking every development from the Court today, because what happens in those marble halls will determine whether critical checks on executive power—and corporate power—survive.
⚡ Quick Hits
-
Live updates: Supreme Court weighs Trump's power to fire independent boards
This Supreme Court case directly addresses Trump's authority to remove independent agency officials without cause, representing a significant test of executive power that aligns with conservative jurisprudence favoring strong presidential authority. The outcome will have major implications for how future Republican administrations can control federal agencies and implement their policy agenda. -
Understanding Trump’s obsession with ObamaCare
This article examines Trump's sustained focus on dismantling the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), framing it as part of a broader effort to erase Obama's presidential legacy. The piece is highly relevant to understanding Trump administration healthcare policy priorities and the ideological conflict between Republican and Democratic approaches to healthcare reform. It reflects a key theme in right-wing political strategy during and after the Trump presidency. -
Must the Military Disobey Unlawful Orders? Pam Bondi Has Said Yes.
Pam Bondi, now Trump's Attorney General, previously filed a Supreme Court brief arguing that military service members who follow unlawful orders commit crimes, reflecting conservative legal positions on executive authority and military obedience. This positions the Trump administration on questions of presidential power and military compliance with executive directives. The appointment and her prior legal positions signal potential shifts in how the administration may approach military-executive relations. -
Greene: Trump labeling her 'traitor' 'directly fueled' death threats against family
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene publicly criticized Trump for labeling her a 'traitor,' claiming his rhetoric directly incited death threats and a pipe bomb threat against her family. This represents a significant rupture within the Republican party and Trump's political coalition, highlighting tensions between Trump and one of his prominent right-wing allies over the consequences of inflammatory political speech. -
Trump says Zelenskyy 'hasn't read U.S. peace proposal' as tensions mount
Trump administration tensions with Ukraine's Zelenskyy over peace proposal negotiations represent a significant foreign policy development under the Trump administration. The dispute reflects Trump's approach to ending the Ukraine conflict and his relationship with key international allies, which are central to understanding current right-wing foreign policy positions. -
After Texas ruling, Trump and Republicans head to 2026 with a redistricting edge
Trump and Republicans are leveraging a Texas court ruling to gain redistricting advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, positioning themselves to maintain House control. Democrats face limited options to counter this strategic move. This represents a significant Republican electoral strategy focused on structural political advantages rather than policy initiatives. -
After Texas ruling, Trump and Republicans head to 2026 with a redistricting edge
Trump and Republicans are leveraging a Texas court ruling to gain redistricting advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, positioning themselves to maintain House control. Democrats face limited options to counter this Republican-led redistricting effort. This represents a significant strategic move by the GOP to secure electoral advantages in the upcoming election cycle. -
After Texas ruling, Trump and Republicans head to 2026 with a redistricting edge
Trump and Republicans are leveraging a Texas court ruling to gain redistricting advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, positioning themselves to maintain House control. Democrats face limited options to counter the Republican redistricting strategy. This represents a significant GOP electoral advantage in the upcoming election cycle.
đź“Š By The Numbers
- 90 years - Age of Supreme Court precedent limiting presidential firing power
- 1935 - Year of unanimous Humphrey's Executor decision being challenged
- January 5 - Date Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene scheduled to resign
đź“° Today's Big Stories
1. The Supreme Court weighs Trump’s bid to fire independent agency board members
Trump's Supreme Court Power Grab Could Demolish 90 Years of Agency Independence
The Supreme Court heard arguments Monday in a case that could hand Donald Trump sweeping new powers to fire watchdogs across the federal government at will—and the conservative supermajority has already shown its hand. The Trump administration is defending the president's firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter without cause, asking the Court to overturn the landmark 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision that has protected independent agency officials from political retaliation for nine decades. Trump has already fired members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission, with only Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook managing to temporarily survive the purge.
The six conservative justices have telegraphed their support for expanding presidential power, having already allowed these firings to proceed while legal challenges continue. Chief Justice John Roberts has spent years systematically dismantling restrictions on presidential removal power, writing in 2020 that such authority is "the rule, not the exception." His 2024 immunity decision even classified firing power among the president's "conclusive and preclusive" authorities that Congress cannot limit—a sweeping interpretation that would gut congressional oversight of executive agencies designed to operate independently from political pressure.
The stakes couldn't be higher for progressive priorities. These independent agencies enforce labor protections, consumer safety standards, antitrust regulations, and financial oversight—all targets of Trump's deregulatory agenda. If the Court rules for Trump, future presidents could simply fire any regulator who won't rubber-stamp their political agenda, transforming supposedly independent watchdogs into partisan enforcers. Even officials who win wrongful termination cases in court might only receive back pay rather than reinstatement, according to Justice Gorsuch's earlier writings, making these protections essentially meaningless.
Watch for a decision by June 2025 that could reshape the entire administrative state. Separate arguments about Lisa Cook's Fed position are scheduled for January, which will test whether even the central bank's independence can survive this assault. Progressive advocates warn this represents a fundamental threat to the post-New Deal regulatory framework that protects workers, consumers, and fair competition from corporate abuse.
2. Listen live: Supreme Court weighs Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner
Supreme Court Could Hand Trump Unprecedented Power Over Independent Watchdogs
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in a case that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power in Washington—and not in favor of accountability. At stake is President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Andrew Ferguson without cause, challenging the legal protections that have shielded independent agencies from pure political control for nearly a century.
Independent agencies like the FTC, SEC, and Federal Reserve were designed with a specific purpose: to operate based on expertise and law rather than presidential whim. Commissioners can typically only be removed "for cause"—meaning misconduct or neglect, not policy disagreements. Trump's legal team is now arguing that these protections are unconstitutional, claiming the president should have unfettered authority to fire any executive branch official at will. This isn't just about one commissioner—it's about whether agencies tasked with protecting consumers, regulating Wall Street, and enforcing antitrust laws can function independently of whoever occupies the Oval Office.
A ruling in Trump's favor would obliterate Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the landmark precedent establishing these protections, and transform every independent agency into an extension of presidential power. Imagine a Federal Reserve chair fired for raising interest rates before an election, or SEC commissioners removed for investigating presidential allies. The implications extend far beyond this administration: any future president would inherit this authority, turning regulators into political operatives and undermining the nonpartisan enforcement that markets and consumers depend on.
What's next: A decision is expected by late June. Progressive advocates and government watchdog groups are sounding alarms, while conservative legal activists see this as a long-sought victory for executive power. Pay attention to how the justices question both sides about the practical consequences—and whether the Court's conservative supermajority is willing to upend nearly 90 years of administrative law to expand presidential authority.
3. Supreme Court to hear case that could vastly expand presidential powers
Supreme Court Poised to Hand Presidents Sweeping New Powers Over Watchdog Agencies
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power in Washington—and not in favor of accountability. At issue is former President Trump's firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner, but the stakes extend far beyond one personnel dispute. The case threatens to overturn nearly a century of precedent that shields independent regulatory agencies from direct presidential control.
For 90 years, agencies like the FTC, SEC, and Federal Reserve have operated with a degree of independence, with commissioners who can only be removed "for cause"—meaning misconduct or neglect, not policy disagreements. This structure was designed to keep critical watchdogs free from political interference, whether they're investigating corporate monopolies, protecting consumers, or regulating financial markets. Trump's legal team argues the president should have unchecked authority to fire these officials at will, effectively turning independent agencies into extensions of the White House.
The implications are staggering. If the conservative supermajority sides with this expansive view of executive power, a future president could instantly purge any regulator who pursues investigations or enforcement actions the administration dislikes. Imagine the SEC chair fired for investigating a president's business allies, or the FTC commissioner removed for blocking a merger involving campaign donors. This isn't hypothetical fearmongering—it's the logical outcome of eliminating the independence these agencies were designed to have.
What's next: A decision is expected by summer 2025. Watch whether the Court's conservatives embrace the broadest "unitary executive" theory or seek a narrower ruling. Either way, this case represents another front in the right's long campaign to dismantle the administrative state and concentrate power in the executive branch—with profound consequences for corporate accountability and regulatory enforcement.
4. Supreme Court to hear case that could vastly expand presidential powers
Supreme Court Poised to Hand Presidents Sweeping New Powers Over Watchdog Agencies
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power in Washington—and not in favor of accountability. At issue is former President Trump's firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner, but the stakes extend far beyond one personnel dispute. The case threatens to overturn nearly a century of precedent that shields independent regulatory agencies from direct presidential control.
For 90 years, agencies like the FTC, SEC, and Federal Reserve have operated with a degree of independence, with commissioners who can only be removed "for cause"—meaning misconduct or neglect, not policy disagreements. This structure was designed to keep critical watchdogs insulated from political pressure, whether they're investigating corporate monopolies, protecting consumers, or regulating financial markets. Trump's legal team argues the president should have unfettered authority to fire these officials at will, a position that aligns with the conservative legal movement's long-standing goal of concentrating executive power.
If the Court's conservative supermajority sides with this argument, the implications are staggering. A future president could effectively neuter any agency investigation or enforcement action simply by threatening to fire commissioners who don't fall in line. Imagine a president dismissing SEC officials probing corporate fraud by political allies, or firing Federal Reserve governors to pressure interest rate decisions before an election. The independence that allows these agencies to serve the public interest rather than partisan agendas would evaporate.
What's next: A decision is expected by summer, and given this Court's track record of embracing expansive executive power theories, watchdog advocates have reason for concern. Pay attention to how the justices treat the Humphrey's Executor precedent from 1935—if they're willing to discard it, few constraints on presidential authority over the administrative state will remain secure. This case deserves far more attention than it's getting.
5. Supreme Court to hear case that could vastly expand presidential powers
Supreme Court Poised to Hand Presidents Sweeping New Powers Over Independent Watchdogs
The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power in Washington—and not in favor of accountability. At issue is former President Trump's firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner, but the stakes extend far beyond one personnel dispute. The case threatens to overturn nearly a century of precedent that prevents presidents from firing leaders of independent agencies at will, potentially giving the Oval Office unprecedented control over regulators meant to operate free from political pressure.
The case centers on independent agencies like the FTC, SEC, and Federal Reserve—bodies specifically designed to make decisions based on expertise and law rather than presidential whim. For 90 years, legal precedent has protected these agencies' leaders from arbitrary removal, allowing them to investigate corporate wrongdoing, enforce consumer protections, and regulate financial markets without fear of political retaliation. Trump's legal team argues this arrangement unconstitutionally limits executive power, while defenders warn that eliminating these protections would turn supposedly independent watchdogs into extensions of whatever administration holds power.
The timing couldn't be more consequential. With Trump potentially returning to office and already promising retribution against perceived enemies, a ruling in his favor would hand any president the tools to purge agency leadership and install loyalists across the regulatory state. Consumer protection, financial oversight, and enforcement of everything from antitrust law to environmental regulations could become subject to raw political calculation. The independence that allows agencies to investigate presidential allies or resist White House pressure would effectively vanish.
What's next: A decision is expected by summer 2025. Watch for how the Court's conservative supermajority weighs the unitary executive theory—beloved by right-wing legal scholars—against decades of functional government structure. Progressive organizations and good-government groups are already preparing for the fallout, knowing that a broad ruling could require congressional action to restore any meaningful independence to federal regulators.
RollingBoil • Tracking right-wing actions and accountability
Stay informed. Stay vigilant.