In a series of silent yet impactful decisions, the Supreme Court has once again sidestepped long-standing precedents that underpin the administrative state, challenging the very structure of independent regulatory agencies. Last week's ruling in *Trump v. Boyle* marks a stark continuation of this trend, as the Court stayed a lower-court injunction that had reinstated three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), who were previously removed by President Donald Trump. This decision not only keeps the commissioners out of office but also signals a green light for the administration to potentially dismantle the CPSC.

This move follows closely on the heels of another similar emergency-docket decision, *Trump v. Wilcox*, which barred reinstatement of key figures in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). These cases collectively represent a seismic shift in the balance of power, enhancing presidential control over independent agencies, while seemingly curtailing the legislative powers vested by Congress in these bodies.

Historically, the Supreme Court has adhered to precedents such as *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States*, a 1935 ruling affirming that Congress could establish independent agencies like the FTC with protections against direct presidential interference. These agencies have been essential in insulating critical regulatory functions from the ebb and flow of political tides. However, the recent rulings appear to overturn these protections without clear justification, undermining nearly a century of legislative framework and judicial endorsements that supported the autonomy of such agencies.

Moreover, the Court's decisions have been issued with scant explanation, bypassing the typical deliberative process that might consider factors like the strength and reasoning of precedent, changes in circumstances since the precedent was established, and the reliance interests involved. This lack of transparency not only fosters legal uncertainty but also erodes the Court's own standing as a neutral arbiter bound by principled reasoning.

By carving out what seems to be an arbitrary exception for the Federal Reserve while overturning protections for other agencies, the Court has introduced a puzzling disparity into the legal landscape, leaving lower courts, lawmakers, and the agencies themselves in a quagmire of uncertainty.

In an era where judicial decisions can deeply influence public policy and governance, the Supreme Court's current trajectory raises profound concerns about the institutional integrity of both the judiciary and the federal regulatory apparatus. The Court’s reluctance to provide a reasoned explanation in these critical cases does not just undermine its legitimacy but also hints at a broader shift towards a more centralized executive power, potentially at the expense of Congressional authority and administrative independence.