He also pointed out, "This is the 25th emergency application from the Trump administration (in the 33rd week of Trump's presidency)."
The decision from Roberts earned swift condemnation from the legal and political community.
Bloomberg Law legal analyst Eleanor Tyler wrote, "Roberts just let Trump kick FTC Commissioner Slaughter back out of her job. Without any reasoning, of course. Which is in DIRECT contravention of an (until now) binding 70+ y.o. Supreme Court precedent. What are lower courts supposed to do now? I guess there are 5 votes against Humphrey's?"
Appellate lawyer Matthew Stiegler cited the case as another example of the "drum I keep banging. Their abuse of the shadow docket lets SCOTUS grab greedy fistfuls of judicial power from lower courts."
"In other words, [Rebecca] Slaughter just got booted from her job again. It's a worrisome sign for her ultimate prospects," commented Slate legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern.
"Let’s be clear what John Roberts did this morning: Roberts effectively overturned the Humphrey’s Executor precedent and both lower courts’ rulings in this case in order to allow Trump to fire Slaughter for now — on the shadow docket and through an 'administrative' stay issued by him alone," wrote Chris Geidner, who write the "Law Dork" Substack.
"I didn’t know a single justice, acting alone, could ignore precedent, but I guess I just lack the imaginative gutlessness of John Roberts," he added.
Political and legal commentator Max Kennerly agreed, saying, "90-year-old precedent, directly on point (FTC removal!), applied faithfully by the District Court to Trump's illegal action. Then Roberts leaps in, before the Circuit Court can consider the appeal, to nullify it by himself without deigning to justify why, not one word of explanation."
Boston immigration lawyer Matt Cameron similarly pointed out that it was "90 years ago SCOTUS told FDR directly that he couldn't fire an FTC commissioner over policy disagreements--only for cause. This court has now, for at least the 3rd time this year, indicated *on the shadow docket w/out explanation* that it no longer considers Humphrey's Executor to be good law."
"I will never claim to be the smartest person in the world, but I simply do not understand 'let’s fire someone from their job all the cases being settled.' Or 'let’s destroy this agency while the case is being settled.” Harms are being perpetuated lawlessly,' wrote writer, editor and human rights advocate Jodi Jacobson.
"John Roberts is a partisan hack," blasted Norm Ornstein, who hosts the "Words Matter" podcast.
Historian Kevin Kruse knocked Roberts by name as well. "Also, the Supreme Court decision in 1935 was unanimous, with liberals and conservatives agreeing that the president did not have this power. It's been on the books for ninety years, but John Roberts of course doesn't give a damn," he said.
"By constantly undermining established precedent the Court is setting up the legal and intellectual framework for dictatorship. It's classic Schmitt, the infamous Nazi jurist. Might makes right, it's legal because the leader wants it, law as a pure instrument of power," agreed writer and journalist Mathew Foresta.
