{"id":354,"date":"2026-07-06T20:39:29","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T20:39:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/homemovechronicle.com\/?p=354"},"modified":"2026-07-06T20:39:29","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T20:39:29","slug":"two-of-john-roberts-biggest-decisions-this-term-directly-contradict-each-other","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/homemovechronicle.com\/?p=354","title":{"rendered":"Two of John Roberts\u2019 Biggest Decisions This Term Directly Contradict Each Other"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

This is part of <\/em>Opinionpalooza<\/em>, Slate\u2019s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by <\/em>signing up for weekly email roundups<\/em>. The best way to support our work\u2014and unlock exclusive legal analysis\u2014is by joining <\/em>Slate Plus<\/em>. (If you are already a member, consider a <\/em>donation<\/em> or <\/em>merch<\/em>!)<\/em><\/p>\n

Read more We\u2019re Not Doomed to Live Under the Supreme Court\u2019s Mistakes<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Two of the Supreme Court\u2019s most important decisions this term contradict each other so brazenly that a future reader might assume they were issued decades apart by very different courts. But in fact, they were authored by the same man, Chief Justice John Roberts, and released at the exact same time. In , Roberts abolished independent agencies by a 6\u20133 vote, allowing President Donald Trump to fire their leaders for any reason. Then, in , the chief justice created an exception to this rule for the Federal Reserve by a 5\u20134 vote, prohibiting the president from removing without good cause. It is impossible to reconcile these two decisions as anything other than a partisan effort to hand Trump dictatorial control over the government without allowing him to drive the nation into a recession.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
Slate Video Content<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

On this week\u2019s episode of Amicus, co-hosts Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discuss the bizarre split screen of Slaughter<\/em> and Cook<\/em>, and how the conservative supermajority\u2019s myopic view of presidential power hampers the government\u2019s most basic functions. They\u2019re joined by two experts in the field: Jed Shugerman, a professor at Boston University School of Law, and Sam Bagenstos, a professor at University of Michigan Law School. An excerpt of their conversation, below, has been edited for length and clarity.<\/p>\n

Dahlia Lithwick:<\/strong> It would be easier to square Slaughter<\/em> and Cook<\/em> if the same guy hadn\u2019t written both opinions. There was some interesting stagecraft where they were read sequentially from the chamber but handed out in the pressroom together. So the folks in the pressroom got them at the same time, and they came online at the same time. But if you were sitting in the courtroom, you found out about Slaughter<\/em> first, then found out about Cook<\/em>\u2019s weird carve-out later. Jed, do you want to make an attempt to explain Cook<\/em> as something more than cynical and results-oriented?<\/p>\n

\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n