The Roberts Court Has Applied the Unitary Executive Branch Doctrine Consistently Across Administrations

As most separation of powers/administrative law scholars know, the Roberts Court has consistently applied the unitary executive branch theory (UET) across Democratic and Republican administrations. That theory maintains, at a minimum, that the President must have the power to remove at will the heads of any federal agencies or commissions that wield substantial executive power. I think the Roberts Court is wrong about the UET. But if it’s wrong, it’s been consistently wrong, regardless of who the President is.

I bring this up only because a recent New York Times essay , to which I contributed, contains a flatly wrong claim about this issue from Stanford political scientist Adam Bonica. I will first briefly describe the history of this issue, then address Bonica’s disturbingly incorr