Mission Possible
Return Constitutional powers to the Executive Branch
Hi friends,
I bet you totally know and understand everything going on in the Trump administration and the courts about President Trump’s actions. No? Me either. But here is information I hope will help you put some puzzle pieces together. And a piece of advice: If you read it or hear it on media or social media, fact-check it. (Allsides or Ad Fontes, etc., but Snopes and Wikipedia lean left.)
President Trump and his team are making every effort to accomplish the mandate the American people voted for. It’s undeniable that Trump and his team have hit the ground running. The recent White House email named 50 Wins in 50 Days, but that’s not even everything. He’s working toward peace, downsizing the bureaucracy and making federal employees accountable, improving the economy, bringing business and investments to America, improving health and education, defending freedom of speech and religious freedom, fighting persecution, growing American jobs, and arresting and/or deporting criminal illegal aliens. Of course, the border was closed on January 20 as soon as he was inaugurated and could sign the Executive Order. That’s a partial list; his goals are many.
Lawfare
Lawfare is a legal onslaught designed to stall, obstruct, and sabotage the President’s policy agenda. This effort relies on activist partisan judges, coordinated lawsuits, and a weaponized media determined to prevent his administration from implementing policies that align with the will of the American people.
The Left’s weapon of choice is to delay, cost the taxpayers money, keep the Trump administration away from the work of Making America Great Again, and continue fearmongering the American people.
The opposition to Trump’s reforms is not centered on substantive policy debates but rather a systematic strategy of legal obstruction. This lawfare campaign employs several key tactics: Activist judges issuing nationwide injunctions at record speed, halting key executive actions within hours of signing; Lawsuits filed in left-leaning circuits to ensure favorable rulings; Federal agencies dragging their feet or outright refusing to enforce Trump’s executive orders; and media misinformation and narrative War - framing every lawsuit as a ‘threat to democracy’ or a ‘constitutional crisis,’ even when cases are still pending or merely procedural.
The weaponization of the legal system against the executive branch is not just an attack on Trump’s agenda but a broader effort to maintain the dominance of the administrative state.
What the Constitution says.
The President’s executive power is derived from Article II, which grants the President authority over the execution of laws, command of the military, and appointments/removals within the executive branch.
The Constitution does not allow agencies to create regulations that override presidential authority. Regulations cannot constitutionally override or limit the President’s core executive powers. Only Congress can enact laws that place restrictions on executive authority.
Why it isn't working that way: How Control Was Shifted Away from the Executive Branch
Congress makes laws, not agencies; however, Congress has ‘passed the buck’ and enacted laws that place restrictions on executive authority, partly by handing off their duties to ‘agencies’ that can then create regulations with the force of law.
The pattern we’ve seen is an artificial shift of control away from the elected executive branch, which is now facing a push to be shifted back, similar to the rollback of Chevron deference.
Over the past century, Congress and courts have allowed more and more power to be concentrated in independent agencies that are not directly accountable to the President or voters. This shift happened in several ways:
-Independent Agencies with ‘For-Cause’ Removal Protections: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) decision established that the President cannot remove certain officials of independent federal agencies without cause, thereby ensuring their independence from executive influence.
-Agencies like the FTC, Federal Reserve, and SEC were insulated from political pressure, but this also undermined the President’s control over policy implementation.
-Administrative Agencies Acting as Lawmakers: Chevron v. NRDC (1984) let federal agencies interpret vague laws with minimal judicial oversight, leading to bureaucratic overreach.
-Agencies, rather than Congress or the President, effectively wrote laws through regulations.
-Congress Delegating Too Much Power: Rather than passing clear laws, Congress increasingly wrote broad statutes and let agencies fill in the details.
Example: The EPA’s climate rules were created by bureaucrats, not elected officials, leading to significant power outside the President’s control.
Supreme Court Precedents on Executive Power:
Myers v. United States (1926) – The President has the unilateral power to remove executive branch officials, invalidating congressional attempts to limit that power.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) – Allowed Congress to limit the President’s power to remove certain officials in independent regulatory agencies (e.g., FTC).
Chevron v. NRDC (1984) (now overturned in 2024; see Loper Bright below) – Previously gave agencies broad power to interpret vague statutes, allowing them to create regulations that indirectly limited executive power.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) – Overturned Chevron, reducing agencies' power to make binding interpretations of laws and restoring some of the President’s executive authority.
Example Scenarios:
Illegal Limits on Executive Power (Unconstitutional)
A federal agency passes a regulation stating, "The President must obtain agency approval before firing any executive branch employee." → Unconstitutional (violates Myers v. U.S.).
An agency issues a regulation stating, "The President cannot override this rule regarding national security classifications." → Unconstitutional (violates Article II).
Legal Limits on Executive Power (Constitutional)
Congress passes a law stating, "Inspectors General cannot be removed without cause" → Constitutional (Humphrey’s Executor precedent).
Congress creates an independent agency (e.g., FTC, Federal Reserve) and specifies that its commissioners can only be removed for cause → Constitutional.
Bottom Line:
Regulations (created by agencies) do not have constitutional authority over the President.
Laws (created by Congress) can impose some limits, but only within constitutional boundaries.
If a regulation tries to limit executive power, it must be backed by a valid law, or it can be challenged in court.
SCOTUS showdowns seem likely to favor executive power.
Overturning Chevron was big, and there are other indications that SCOTUS is recognizing how far we've gotten from the Constitution.
Recent rulings suggest the Supreme Court is increasingly rejecting activist judicial interference in executive actions. Chevron was overturned (by Loper v Bright) (2024), and courts must now independently interpret laws instead of deferring to agencies, giving Trump’s executive orders a stronger legal footing. Also, West Virginia v. EPA (2022) set the ‘major questions’ doctrine, requiring Congress to explicitly grant agencies power over significant economic or political decisions. Also, in Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within their core constitutional powers, such as commanding the military and issuing pardons. This decision vacated a lower court's ruling and reinforced executive authority.
These factors indicate that, unlike in his first term, Trump now has the judicial and legislative momentum to neutralize lawfare’s impact.
Recent cases in the right direction.
Hampton Dellinger, former head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), was dismissed by President Trump in February 2025 without a stated cause. Dellinger, appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate, challenged his removal, citing statutory protections that limit dismissals to cases of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
A district court initially reinstated him, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Trump’s authority, leading Dellinger to drop his legal fight. This ruling suggests a judicial shift toward expanding presidential removal power, even for officials previously considered insulated from direct executive control.
DOGE’s Legal Victory: A Win for Transparency and Government Efficiency
A recent court ruling affirmed the legality of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key Trump initiative:
A federal judge denied an injunction against DOGE’s access to federal agency data.
This allows DOGE to audit government spending, eliminate inefficiencies, and increase transparency.
The ruling sets a precedent that prevents states from interfering in internal executive audits. (Precedent has the force of law in the sense that courts and government officials follow it unless and until it is overturned.)
DOGE’s success underscores Trump’s commitment to exposing and eliminating bureaucratic waste.
Current cases and possible outcomes.
1. Mahmoud Khalil Case (2025)
Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful U.S. resident, was detained by ICE in March 2025.
The Department of Homeland Security alleges connections to Hamas, leading to deportation proceedings.
His legal team argues the detention violates his First Amendment and due process rights.
A federal judge issued an injunction blocking his deportation pending further court review.
This case raises key constitutional questions about free speech, immigration enforcement, and executive authority.
(As of now I could find no ruling on the habeas corpus hearing scheduled for March 12 and extended to March 14 to assess the legality of his detention and the government's actions.)
2. Trump v. United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (2025)
President Trump is appealing to the Supreme Court to limit lower courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, it could significantly curtail the ability of federal judges to block executive actions nationwide.
3. United States v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2025)
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
The case could reach the Supreme Court and determine the scope of executive authority over immigration laws.
4. National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education v. Trump (2025)
A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction blocking key parts of Trump’s executive orders restricting DEI programs.
This case will likely determine the extent to which the President can regulate diversity initiatives at federally funded institutions.
More decisions in favor of Executive Power are needed.
With dozens of injunctions and suits* in process, decisions will definitely be coming. (The longer the left can drag things out, the harder it is for the Trump administration to progress its agenda quickly.)
In addition to the DOGE decision, the Dellinger ruling suggests a judicial shift toward expanding presidential removal power, even for officials previously considered insulated from direct executive control.
This case was also ruled in favor of Executive authority: US African Development Foundation Leadership Dispute (2025): A federal judge allowed President Trump to proceed with appointing Pete Marocco to lead the US African Development Foundation, replacing President Ward Brehm.
How this shift of control away from the elected executive branch is being reversed.
The unconstitutional transfer of power to unelected bureaucrats and independent agencies is being reversed. The Dellinger case, and potentially an upcoming challenge to Humphrey’s Executor, could further return control where the Constitution intended it - under the President.
There are other ongoing legal challenges that could potentially lead to the Supreme Court revisiting and possibly overturning the precedent set by Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935).
Recent Legal Developments:
Wilcox v. Trump (2025):
In January 2025, President Trump dismissed Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), without citing cause. Wilcox filed a lawsuit challenging her removal, arguing that it violated the protections established under Humphrey's Executor. During a March 5, 2025, hearing, the presiding judge appeared sympathetic to Wilcox's arguments, suggesting that the court may rule her dismissal unlawful.
Trump Administration's Position:
The current administration has openly expressed its intent to challenge the Humphrey's Executor precedent. Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris indicated that the Department of Justice plans to urge the Supreme Court to overrule the decision, asserting that it unconstitutionally restricts the President's authority to remove officials from independent agencies.
Potential Impact on Federal Agencies:
Overturning Humphrey's Executor could significantly alter the structure and independence of various federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Reserve. Such a shift would grant the President greater authority to remove agency leaders, potentially influencing regulatory policies and the enforcement of federal laws.
Supreme Court's Recent Stance:
The Supreme Court has shown a willingness to reconsider precedents related to the President's removal power. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director removable only for cause, was unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, distinguished this case from Humphrey's Executor, noting that the CFPB's structure differed from the multi-member commissions addressed in the 1935 decision.
While Humphrey's Executor remains binding precedent, ongoing legal challenges and the current administration's stance suggest that its future is uncertain. The Supreme Court's forthcoming decisions in related cases will be pivotal in determining whether Humphrey's Executor will be upheld or overturned, thereby reshaping the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.
To put it succinctly, yes, the bureaucracy has been running the country unconstitutionally, and the legal framework to dismantle it is already in motion. While case law moves slowly, the trend is clear: the Supreme Court is poised to limit or overturn the legal precedents that allowed this unconstitutional expansion of power.
The Bureaucratic State Could Be Ruled Unconstitutional
Separation of Powers Violation
The Constitution grants:
Legislative power to Congress (Article I)
Executive power to the President (Article II)
Judicial power to the Courts (Article III)
Federal agencies today exercise all three - writing regulations (legislation), enforcing them (executive), and punishing violations (judicial).
This concentration of power violates the separation of powers doctrine, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed as a bedrock constitutional principle.
The critical mission of returning Constitutional powers to the Executive Branch is totally possible but realize that it will not be an overnight accomplishment.
And we certainly can’t expect that all cases will be ruled favorable to the Executive Branch, but we’ll continue to see appeals and cases that go to the Supreme Court. That’s where the rubber will meet the road.
* Your Guide To The Lawsuits Challenging A President’s Power To Fire Executive Officials
* Here’s Your Guide To The Lawsuits Challenging Trump’s Funding Freezes And Terminations
As always, do your own research; make up your own mind.
References to other sources do not necessarily reflect my opinions, and I make no claim to their veracity or completeness. I provide them for your consideration.
(AI may have been used in this article.)
God bless you, God bless President Trump and team, and God bless America!
Stay calm - President Trump is a businessman who operates strategically, and not everything will make sense at first. His plan to shrink government and Make America Great Again is a process, not an overnight fix. Trust the long game, not just the headlines.
This message reflects my personal perspective on current events. While I strive for accuracy, please verify details through official sources linked above. If sharing, I encourage readers to include this disclaimer to ensure clarity.
United we stand. Divided we fall. We must not let America fall.
VoteTexas.gov, https://www.votetexas.gov/get-involved/index.html
Until next time…
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Or email me, and let’s have a problem-solving conversation. I hope we can create a caucus with positive, back-to-the-founders’-dream-for-America results. Have a topic you want to know more about?
Some housekeeping…
Going forward, you may need to check your spam folder. And please mark this address as ‘not spam.’ If the newsletter isn’t in your spam folder either, you should look in the Promotions tab.
You can always see everything on the website, RationalAmerican.org.
Thanks again for reading! I’m glad you’re here!