Trump Wins Huge Supreme Court Case: ‘This Is Historic’

But this is a power not given him by the People, by the Congress, or by the Constitution,” their dissent continued.

The dissent said that in giving the President this unchecked power, the Court “turns its back on its own precedent, misreads our history, and abandons all pretense of judicial modesty.”

But the dissent is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution.

As Dyke noted, Article II begins with the words: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

That, he says, makes clear that the founders intended for the president alone to make all decisions regarding Executive Branch authorities, not the heads of Executive Branch offices established by Congress, many of whom may not share the president’s policy preferences, and could slow-walk or even ignore his orders.

As for Sotomayor, she read her dissent from the bench, a practice that justices use when they want to emphasize their strong disagreement with a case.

For decades, conservative legal scholars and advocacy groups have argued that the Humphrey’s Executor precedent inappropriately limited the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch and was inconsistent with the separation of powers.