A More Powerful President Over a Weaker Presidency

The conservative legal movement of the past four decades has proven itself a fraud

Photo by Virginia Commonwealth University Libraries on Unsplash

On June 30, 2026, on the Advisory Opinions podcast, the day after the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter, Sarah Isgur said this, on tape, in her own voice:

Congress has delegated so much power to the executive with no ability to claw it back, and it’s not working. And so slowly but surely Congress has died that the only thing left to do is have the court reinstitute firm barriers for the separation of powers to force Congress to do its job.

The next morning, at the Aspen Ideas Festival, on a panel called Major Questions, Major Consequences, moderated by Jonathan Capehart in the Paepcke Auditorium, she said this:

The Tariffs case is the most important case, probably of the last quarter century, because it is, again, putting the onus back on Congress. It is shrinking the powers of the presidency in incredibly important ways right now.

And in February, in The Atlantic, she published the epigram version, the one that will be quoted back to her for the rest of her career:

Trump will be a more powerful president over a weaker presidency.

This is her thesis. It is not a slip. It is not an ambush answer to a hostile question. It is the argument she has spent the past year making, in every venue that will have her — Advisory Opinions, The Atlantic, the New York Times, NPR, Aspen, Dartmouth, a book — and it is the argument she will continue to make, because it is the argument the architecture of her career requires her to make.

The argument is this. The Roberts Court, in a sequence of rulings — Loper Bright stripping agencies of interpretive authority, the tariffs case cutting presidential emergency powers, Trump v. Slaughter voiding the removal protections that had insulated independent agencies since Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 — is not, appearances notwithstanding, enlarging executive power. It is contracting the executive branch as a whole, while consolidating the president’s control over what remains of it. The result, in her formulation, is a smaller executive commanded more completely. And because the powers stripped from the agencies had to go somewhere, they go, by the Court’s logic, back to Congress — which will now, at last, be forced to do its constitutional job.

That is the thesis. It has a name in constitutional scholarship. It has a name in the concurrence of a Justice she reads aloud on her own podcast. The name is the ratchet. And the reason to write this piece is that Sarah Isgur, having read the name aloud on the record, having heard it named by Neil Gorsuch of all people, does not follow the name to where it leads.

⁂

Read Gorsuch’s concurrence in Slaughter as she read it aloud from the tape on her own show:

It may be true that after today there is no more fourth branch of government, but the fourth branch’s powers still exist. They’ve just been reassigned to the president. And any president keen on his own authority will have a strong incentive to veto any effort to reclaim those powers from Congress. The consequence is a ratchet effect. Authorities Congress once delegated by simple majority may now require a veto-proof supermajority to retrieve.

That is Isgur’s rendition of the passage on air. The slip opinion phrases the core sentence as “the fourth branch’s powers still exist; they have just been reassigned to the President” — the ratchet, either way, is the ratchet. This is the demolition of Isgur’s thesis, delivered by the Court’s most doctrinally purist unitary-executive theorist, on the majority side of the case she has been celebrating. Gorsuch is saying: yes, the theory strips the fourth branch, and yes, the powers have to go somewhere, and no, they do not go back to Congress. They go to the president. And once they are with the president, they stay with the president, because retrieving them from the president requires overriding a presidential veto, which requires a two-thirds supermajority, which the American Congress has not routinely assembled in living memory. The delegation was a simple-majority act. The reclamation is a supermajority act. The math does not work as a forcing function. The math works as a one-way transfer. That is what a ratchet is.

Isgur reads this on the record. Her response, on the record:

He basically says, and that’s why this isn’t just Congress’s problem. He actually, you know, silently is rebutting our Congress-do-your-job thesis because he’s like, look, Congress would need a supermajority to take back some of this power. It’s not just Congress’s job. It is also the court’s job.

Register what has just happened. Justice Gorsuch has explained, in a concurrence to a decision she is celebrating, that her theory is arithmetically incoherent. She has acknowledged that he is doing so. She calls it a “rebuttal.” And then she keeps the thesis. The thesis is not modified. The thesis is not qualified. The thesis is not withdrawn. The thesis becomes also the court’s job, as if adding the court’s participation solves the arithmetic. It does not. The court cannot legislate. The court cannot appropriate. The court cannot even reliably enforce its own orders against a hostile executive. The court, in the doctrine she is defending, has just handed the president the powers of the fourth branch and told Congress to try to get them back with a supermajority. There is no version of “also the court’s job” that closes this circle.

The rebuttal is inside the tape. It is her own show. She has quoted it. And she cannot see it, because seeing it would require dismantling the thesis, and the thesis is what she has been credentialed to hold — which is a different thing from being paid to hold it, and a more damning one, as I’ll come to.

---

---

The tell is not the incoherence. Incoherence in political argument is common. The tell is the register. Notice what Isgur is doing when she says the thesis. She is not defending a novel constitutional interpretation that emerged, over the course of ordinary jurisprudential development, from a decades-long conversation among law professors and judges applying the text of the Constitution to the actual controversies of American life. She is defending a project. She uses the word herself, on the record. The larger project the Roberts Court seems to have undertaken. This is project language. Projects have designers. Projects have funders. Projects have goals set outside the process by which they are executed inside institutions.

The project has a history. The history is not a mystery. The history is fully documented and has been for decades.

The unitary executive theory as it exists today — the doctrine that all executive power is vested in a single president who must therefore command every officer exercising executive authority, that independent agencies with for-cause removal protections are constitutional impositions on Article II, that the administrative state as it developed from 1887 forward is a century-long usurpation Congress must be forced to unwind — is not the constitutional understanding of the Founders. It is not the constitutional understanding of the nineteenth century. It is not the constitutional understanding of the first two-thirds of the twentieth. It is a doctrine constructed in the last four decades of the twentieth century by lawyers working inside a legal-movement infrastructure funded by particular donors for particular purposes.

The infrastructure has a name. Its founding document is the 1971 Powell Memorandum, written by Lewis Powell — later a Supreme Court Justice — for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, calling on American business to build a permanent counter-institutional apparatus in response to what Powell described as an ideological assault on the free enterprise system. The apparatus Powell called for was built. Its financial backbone was constructed in the following decade by the Olin Foundation, the Scaife foundations, the Bradley Foundation, and the Koch network — donor structures whose wealth derived, in every principal case, from extractive and heavy industry, and whose interest in the administrative state was the interest of every regulated industry in the regulator’s disempowerment.

The institutional expression of the apparatus, on the legal side, was the Federalist Society, founded at Yale, Chicago, and Harvard in 1982 with seed money from those foundations. The Federalist Society did not invent originalism, which existed as an academic tendency, and did not invent the unitary executive theory, which existed as a fringe view. It industrialized both. It funded chairs, hosted conferences, credentialed clerks, ran the pipeline that fed the federal bench for forty years, and by the first Trump administration effectively vetted the Supreme Court short list — the three Trump appointees to the Court all came from Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society list. The doctrines it promoted did not become the law of the land because they won a fair fight in the marketplace of legal ideas. They became the law of the land because the pipeline was built and staffed and funded to make them the law of the land. (That the pipeline has since outlived its patron’s affection — Trump publicly branded Leonard Leo a sleazebag in May 2025 after Federalist Society–credentialed judges struck down his tariffs — is not a refutation of the pipeline’s power. It is a demonstration of it. The pipeline is what institutionalization means: the credentialed cohort is loyal to the doctrine, not to the patron, and continues to enforce the doctrine even when the patron who financed its ascent turns on it. That is the pipeline working as designed.)

This is the project Isgur is describing when she says the larger project the Roberts Court seems to have undertaken. She is not wrong that there is a project. She is wrong about the project’s origin, wrong about its funding, wrong about its purpose, and wrong about what “originalism” means as a description of what it does.

⁂

The purpose of the project is not, and has never been, constitutional or historical fidelity. The plausible-sounding arguments about Article II, about the Vesting Clause, about the meaning of executive Power, about the founding generation’s supposed hostility to independent commissions — these are the arguments. The purpose is elsewhere. The purpose is to render the modern professional administrative state — upon which our modern economy and life depend — untenable within the constitutional framework as reinterpreted by the pipeline, and thus to see a complete end to the New Deal-era settlement on the role of the federal government. That is the goal. That has always been the goal. Everything else is the vestment worn over the goal.

The New Deal settlement, roughly, is this. Between 1887 and 1938, the country built a set of specialized administrative bodies — the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration in its modern form — designed to regulate technically complex industries with expertise Congress does not possess and cannot assemble. The design was bipartisan. The design was ratified by the country repeatedly at the ballot box. The design was upheld, for ninety years, by a Supreme Court that recognized Humphrey’s Executor in 1935 as the constitutional accommodation without which the modern regulatory state cannot function. The design is what makes it possible for you to trust that the pill in the bottle is the pill on the label, that the elevator in the building has been inspected, that the airplane in the sky has been maintained, that the money in the bank is insured, that the food in the grocery store is not poison, and that the water in the tap is not lead. This is not a philosophical claim. This is a description of how the country actually runs.

The doctrine currently marching under the unitary executive banner is a plan to dismantle that design by making it constitutionally impermissible. Not by convincing the country to repeal it. Not by winning legislative majorities and passing statutes to shrink it. By ruling, from the bench, that the design was unconstitutional all along, that the country was mistaken about its own founding for ninety years, that Humphrey’s Executor was a mistake now corrected, that the independent commissions Congress built to run a modern economy were never constitutional to begin with, and that the president must now command every one of them — or Congress must recover its non-delegable functions by supermajority, which it cannot, which is the point. The doctrine looks like a fight about executive power. It is a fight about whether the modern regulatory state can continue to exist. The doctrine’s real target is not the president’s control over the FTC. The doctrine’s real target is the FTC.

This is why the doctrine cannot be defended by its historical merits and must be defended, always, in the register of general principle — separation of powers, forcing function, congressional revival, the beauty of enumerated authority. The register is elevated because the mechanism is unspeakable. The mechanism is the elimination of the state Franklin Roosevelt built and the country ratified and every American under seventy has lived inside their entire life. The doctrine’s proponents cannot say this. So they say something else. They say the doctrine will force Congress to do its job. They say the doctrine will rebalance the separation of powers. They say the doctrine will produce a more powerful president over a weaker presidency. The elevated language is the vestment. The New Deal state’s dismantlement is the body underneath the vestment. This is why originalism is not a method. A method would produce results across cases. This produces one result, across cases: whatever ruling most rapidly makes the administrative state constitutionally untenable.

And notice the specific mechanism by which the dismantlement is delivered, because this is the part the funders understood from the beginning and the profession has been careful never to say aloud. The unitary executive doctrine does not, on its face, deregulate anything. It does not repeal the Clean Air Act. It does not abolish the Securities and Exchange Commission. It does not overturn the labor statutes. What it does is worse, from the regulated industries’ point of view better, and from the country’s point of view irrecoverable. It makes the regulatory apparatus unstable by design. An FTC whose commissioners can be terminated at the president’s pleasure cannot sustain a decade-long antitrust case, because the commissioners bringing the case will not be there in a decade, and the commissioners who replace them will be selected for their willingness to drop it. An EPA whose enforcement priorities are directly commanded from the West Wing cannot credibly maintain a permitting regime, because every four years the permitting regime resets to whatever the incumbent’s donors need it to be. An SEC that answers immediately to the president cannot credibly investigate the president’s donors, or the president’s family, or the president himself, because the investigators are removable at will and every investigator knows it. A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau whose director serves at pleasure cannot enforce a consent decree against a bank whose CEO donated to the incumbent’s campaign. The doctrine does not need to abolish the agencies. The doctrine only needs to make the agencies’ enforcement contingent on the political calendar, and the regulated industries do the rest — they wait out the administrations that threaten them, they fund the administrations that don’t, and they get, over time, the outcome they could never have won on the merits, which is regulation as theater, staged for the news cycle, unenforced against anyone with the resources to survive an administration.

This is deregulation delivered through the mechanism of politicized regulation. This is the outcome the extractive industries needed and could never have gotten legislatively, because the country, asked plainly whether it wants clean air and clean water and antitrust enforcement and financial fraud enforcement and workplace safety enforcement, says yes every time in every survey. The country’s answer at the ballot box is not the doctrine’s problem. The doctrine’s solution is to make the country’s answer irrelevant to the enforcement — because the enforcement is at the pleasure of a president who is at the pleasure of the donors who fund the campaigns of the party that appoints the judges who ratify the doctrine. That is the circuit. That is what the doctrine is for. The Powell Memo said so, in 1971, in language that reads today like a confession — the memo is a call for exactly the counter-institutional apparatus that would, over the following half-century, produce this exact outcome. The apparatus was built. The outcome was delivered. The country was not told.

If the professional class insists that the extractive-industry funding of the movement is coincidence rather than mechanism, look at who celebrates when the rulings come down. When Loper Bright overturned Chevron in June 2024 — a decision the professional class narrated to the country as a technical adjustment to administrative-law doctrine, a rebalancing of interpretive authority between courts and agencies, a question of judicial humility versus judicial abdication — the reaction inside the oil and gas sector was not the reaction of professionals absorbing a modest doctrinal refinement. The reaction inside the oil and gas sector was jubilation. It was championship-day jubilation. The industry knew, immediately and without ambiguity, that the case had delivered exactly the tool the industry had spent forty years funding the movement to secure: the transfer of interpretive authority over ambiguous environmental statutes from the agencies that enforce them to a judiciary the movement had spent forty years staffing. The industry celebrated because the industry understood the ruling. The industry understood the ruling because the industry paid for the ruling. And the industry knew, in a way the professional class narrating the ruling to a national audience either did not know or would not say, that the ruling was worth every dollar of the forty years of foundation grants, chair endowments, judicial-selection screening, and amicus brief litigation that produced it. The industry’s celebration is the ruling’s meaning. If you want to know what a ruling was for, watch who cheers when it lands.

The pattern repeats across the sequence. West Virginia v. EPA. The tariffs case, which the industry read as a check on presidential power to disrupt trade flows it had priced into its long-cycle capital planning. Trump v. Slaughter, which the industry read as the removal of the regulatory guardrails around the agencies it does business with. In each case, the professional class narrated the ruling as jurisprudence and the industry understood the ruling as a delivery. The professional class is not lying, in most cases. The professional class is credentialed not to see. The industry is credentialed to see, because the industry paid for the sight.

And this is why the professional-class defense — you may not agree with this interpretation, but it’s a valid interpretation, and five justices on the Supreme Court hold it — is not, when you look at what it is doing, a legal argument. It is a laundering operation. The doctrine is called valid because sitting justices hold it. The sitting justices hold it because the pipeline selected them to hold it. The pipeline selected them to hold it because the funders required a bench that would hold it. The funders required a bench that would hold it because holding it delivers, through the mechanism of politicized regulation, the deregulation the funders could not otherwise win. And the circle closes with the profession saying: well, the Court has ruled, and reasonable minds can differ on close constitutional questions. But the question was never close. The question was never even a legal question in the sense the profession pretends. The question was: will the country accept, as a legitimate exercise of constitutional interpretation, a doctrine constructed in the 1970s by lawyers funded to construct it, staffed onto the bench by a pipeline built to staff it, ratified by justices selected to ratify it, and delivering exactly the regulatory disempowerment the funders paid to deliver? That is not a question about the Constitution. That is a question about whether the country will notice.

And because the doctrine’s actual mechanism cannot survive contact with the country’s actual needs, the doctrine’s own architects periodically flinch. Consider what the Court did the same day it decided Trump v. Slaughter. In Trump v. Cook, by a 5–4 vote with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberal justices, the same Court that had just voided the removal protections around independent commissions carved out the Federal Reserve — held that the Fed’s insulation from presidential removal was, uniquely, sanctioned by history and therefore preserved. Justice Barrett, in dissent, asked the question the majority could not answer: How can history support both a categorical rule and a carveout? Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Slaughter, called the Fed carveout an ad hoc historical exemption. They are describing the same thing. What the Court has actually done is not to apply a historical rule. What the Court has done is to apply a historical rule everywhere the rule serves the pipeline’s purpose, and to except the one institution whose destruction would collapse the American financial system within a business quarter. History supports the categorical rule when the target is the CFPB, the NLRB, the FTC. History supports the carveout when the target is the Fed. The originalism is not tracking the history. The originalism is tracking the pipeline’s tolerance for consequences. Barrett saw it. Sotomayor saw it. The doctrine is a doctrine of convenience, and the majority admitted it on the day it announced it, in the same set of opinions, without noticing it had done so.

When the doctrine’s own justices cannot apply the doctrine consistently in the same set of decisions issued on the same day, the doctrine is not a method. The doctrine is a project. The project is what Isgur named. The project is what she does not name accurately, because to name it accurately is to name what her career has been for.

⁂

Originalism, as marketed, is the doctrine that judges should apply the Constitution as its original public meaning was understood at ratification. Originalism, in operation, is the doctrine that judges should apply the Constitution as the funders of the Federalist Society need it to have been understood at ratification. Its narrow academic form — the version that says, for example, that the Vesting Clause is best read to give the president plenary removal power over principal officers exercising executive authority — has serious defenders in the legal academy, and is the version originalists retreat to when pressed in a seminar. Its maximal operational form — the version that says every independent commission Congress has built since 1887 is a constitutional imposition on Article II, that the entire architecture of the administrative state is presumptively unconstitutional, that the president may impound appropriated funds and terminate statutory commissioners at will and re-designate agency heads in defiance of Senate confirmation — has no serious defenders in the legal academy and is the version deployed in the executive order, on the podcast, in the majority opinion, in the Atlantic essay. The move is the classic motte and bailey. The narrow version is defended in the citadel where the professors live. The maximal version is used in the field where the country lives. When the maximal version is challenged, the defender retreats to the narrow version and calls the critic uncharitable. When the challenge subsides, the maximal version returns to the field. Sarah Isgur’s Atlantic essay is written in the field. Her Advisory Opinions commentary is delivered in the field. The doctrine is not a doctrine held in the seminar. The doctrine is a doctrine deployed at the agency, in the litigation, in the executive order, and in the panel session at Aspen. That is the doctrine at stake. That is the doctrine that has no serious defenders. That is the doctrine whose actual proponents are lawyers who know, when pressed, to fall back on the narrower and more respectable version they do not actually intend to enforce.

Thomas Jefferson would have understood the current unitary executive doctrine as the doctrine he fought against, and lost to for a season, and then won back at the polls. Hamilton advocated a strong executive. Hamilton lost the argument in the Constitution itself, in the way the document distributes powers — Article I first, longest, most detailed, enumerated with care; Article II shorter, less enumerated, cabined by the requirement that the executive “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” where the laws are the laws Congress passes. Hamilton lost the argument in the Federalist Papers themselves, where Hamilton’s own defense of the presidency, Federalist 69, insists at length that the American executive is emphatically weaker than the British king. Read the actual catalog Hamilton gives, in the order he gives it. The American president holds his office for four years by election; the British king holds his by inheritance for life, sacred and inviolable. The American president is impeachable and removable; the British king is not. The American president has, in Hamilton’s own words, a qualified negative over legislation — the veto, overridable by two-thirds of each chamber — while the British king holds an absolute negative over Parliament. The American president is commander in chief only of forces Congress has raised, and only when the militia has been called into federal service; the British king declares war, raises fleets and armies, and regulates them at his own discretion. The American president may grant reprieves and pardons except in cases of impeachment; the British king’s pardon reaches every offense. The American president may adjourn Congress only when the two chambers disagree on adjournment; the British king may prorogue or dissolve Parliament at will. The American president makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; the British king is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in every foreign transaction. The American president appoints officers with the advice and consent of the Senate; the British king is the fountain of honor who appoints to every office and creates offices at pleasure. The American president has no ecclesiastical jurisdiction, no power over commerce or currency beyond what the Constitution grants, no prerogative to coin money or regulate weights and measures. The whole essay is a catalog of the powers the executive does not have.

Any person who has read Federalist 69, in the plain English in which it was published, cannot honestly argue that the Founders intended the doctrine currently marching under the unitary executive banner. Jefferson would have read the current doctrine as monarchism. Madison would have read it as a return to the abuses the Constitution was written to prevent. Even Hamilton, arguing for a stronger executive than his co-authors wanted, would not have argued for the doctrine the Federalist Society has built — because Hamilton, whatever his failings, was not stupid, and knew that a president who could fire the head of every independent commission Congress created, wage war without Congressional authorization, and impound appropriated funds at will was not the executive he was defending in 69. Hamilton was defending the president as Article II describes him. The current doctrine is defending the president as extractive industry needs him to be.

Originalism, as a school of interpretation, does not exist as a coherent method that reaches determinate results across cases. It exists as a rhetorical vestment worn over particular results reached in advance for particular reasons by particular interests. When the vestment is pulled aside — when one asks, for any given originalist ruling, what specifically about the historical record required this reading and not the plausible alternative — the answer, at the load-bearing moments, is not in the historical record. The answer is in the funders’ interest and in the movement’s pipeline. This has been documented, repeatedly, by legal scholars operating outside the movement. The most recent and most detailed of these documentations is the response of Stephen Vladeck, one of the most credentialed federal courts scholars alive, to Isgur’s Atlantic essay. Vladeck’s assessment, on the record:

Just about every part of this claim is specious... This Court, far more than any of its predecessors, has embraced expansive readings of the President’s inherent and indefeasible constitutional authority that both directly and indirectly have redounded to the short- and long-term detriment of Congress.

That is not a left-wing polemicist. That is the mainstream federal courts scholar of the last two decades, saying, on his own newsletter, in the calmest register he knows, that Isgur’s thesis is not a defensible reading of the doctrine and not a defensible reading of the record. The narrow version of the doctrine — the seminar-room version that stipulates a plenary removal power over principal officers and leaves the rest of the administrative architecture intact — has serious defenders in the academy, and Vladeck’s critique is not aimed at that version. His critique is aimed at what the doctrine actually is in the field — the maximal operational form the majority is enforcing, the version Isgur is defending in the venues where laypeople listen — and that version has no serious defenders. That version is the version that has taken the bench and is being deployed to unwind the administrative state. And that version is tolerated by the profession not because the profession finds it correct, but because expelling it would require confronting the pipeline that installed it, and confronting the pipeline would require the profession to notice what its own credentialing system has been for the past forty years. The profession does not want to notice. So the profession tolerates.

⁂

Return to Isgur and to the question of why she cannot see the ratchet.

I have written before about the shape of the operation — the cognitive move that converts specific accountability questions into general structural claims about how anyone in the position would have behaved. That earlier piece treated the operation in the moral register, on the material of the Dispatch Podcast’s Epstein discussion. The observation there was that Isgur, asked whether the officials in the Situation Room had done something wrong, converted the question into the counterfactual whether any administration would have run the same meeting. The counterfactual has no answer. That is why it was chosen.

The operation on the constitutional material is the same operation. Asked whether the unitary executive doctrine, as currently deployed, will produce a permanent concentration of executive power over a supine legislature, she converts the question into the general claim that the doctrine will force Congress to reclaim its Article I role. The general claim has no answer. Congress will either do it or it will not, and if it does not, the doctrine will have produced exactly the concentration its critics warned about. The general claim, like the moral counterfactual, cannot be falsified in the venue in which it is being made. Which is why it is being made in this venue. The doctrine is being defended in the register in which it cannot be checked.

The character is the same character. The operation is the same operation. In one case the object is the moral responsibility of officials for their acts. In the other case the object is the constitutional consequence of the doctrine for the country. In both cases the operation converts the specific to the general and calls the general a thesis. In both cases the co-hosts and the panelists and the readers are asked to accept the thesis as sophisticated analysis when it is in fact the maneuver that professional operatives run when the specific question is closing in.

There is a reason she cannot stop running it, and this is the part that requires care, because the easy version of the argument — that she is paid to hold this view, that she is a hired mouthpiece for an ideological project — is the version that lets everyone off the hook, including her, because it treats her as an instrument rather than as a person. The instrument account is too simple. It is also, in the pipeline’s own operational terms, false. The pipeline does not buy opinions. The pipeline does something more effective, and more corrosive, and more difficult to name. The pipeline selects.

Here is how it works, in the actual mechanism, described by the academics who have documented it — Steven Teles’s The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement, Ann Southworth’s Lawyers of the Right, Amanda Hollis-Brusky’s Ideas with Consequences, Jane Mayer’s Dark Money. The Federalist Society and the movement infrastructure around it identifies, at the law-school level, students who already hold the doctrine’s premises as intuitions — that the administrative state is illegitimate, that the New Deal represented a constitutional break rather than a constitutional continuation, that the federal government is too large, that regulation is presumptively suspect, that professional expertise is a form of unaccountable power. These students are not converted by the pipeline. They arrive at the pipeline already believing. The pipeline finds them and gives them the credentials that make their belief consequential. It puts them into clerkships with judges who share the belief. It puts them into DOJ roles where the belief becomes operational. It puts them into think-tank positions where the belief becomes an op-ed, and then into commentary chairs where the op-ed becomes a broadcast register, and then into book contracts where the broadcast register becomes doctrine, and then into panel invitations where the doctrine becomes conventional wisdom. At every step, sincerity is the criterion. The performer must actually believe. If she does not actually believe, the performance will not convince. The pipeline needs performers who convince because the doctrine can only be installed if the country accepts the performance as expert testimony rather than as ideological advocacy. Which means the pipeline needs sincerity. Which means the pipeline selects for sincerity. Which means Sarah Isgur is not a hired gun. Sarah Isgur is a talented and ambitious young lawyer who arrived at Harvard Law School already holding views the pipeline needed held, who was identified early, who was credentialed correctly, who clerked for Judge Edith Jones on the Fifth Circuit, who took the Justice Department role — spokeswoman to Jeff Sessions, then senior counsel to Rod Rosenstein — because the doctrine’s practitioners had built the ladder for exactly the person she already was, and who now sits in the Advisory Opinions chair and on the Aspen panel and in the Atlantic essay because the pipeline needed someone in exactly that chair, on exactly that panel, in exactly that essay, sincerely holding exactly the view she sincerely holds. The pipeline is not paying her to hold it. The pipeline built the machine that finds people who hold it, credentials them, and places them where the sincerity does the work. That is the mechanism. That is more damning than the hired-gun account, not less, because it means the sincerity is the product. It also means that any critique of the sincerity misses the point. Sarah Isgur is sincere. The doctrine is still what the doctrine is. The pipeline is still what the pipeline is. The sincerity is what makes the pipeline work.

The whole architecture presupposes that the doctrine is real jurisprudence, that the pipeline that produced her produced a legitimate legal tradition, that originalism is a method rather than a marketing operation. To see the ratchet is to see the pipeline. To see the pipeline is to see the funders. To see the funders is to see that the doctrine is not what the doctrine claims to be. To see that is to see that her career is not what her career claims to be. And the pipeline selected her, in part, because she is the kind of person who cannot see this. That is not a defect. That is the specification.

She cannot see it. So she does not see it. So when Neil Gorsuch, of all people, spells out the arithmetic on the majority side of her favorite recent case, she reads the arithmetic aloud, calls it a “silent rebuttal,” and continues on with the thesis. The tape is the tape. The ratchet is the ratchet. The performance is the performance. The performance is what her career is for.

⁂

A word about what the professional class does with a piece like this one, and the reason none of the moves will work.

The professional class will say the argument is uncharitable, that Isgur has thought long and hard about these questions, that she has arrived at her position in good faith, that she is a serious constitutional thinker whose views deserve engagement rather than dismissal. All of this can be granted without conceding a word of the case. Sincerity is not the question. Good faith is not the question. Seriousness is not the question. The question is whether the doctrine she is defending, examined on its own terms and in the mechanism its own defenders describe, does what she says it does. It does not. Neil Gorsuch says it does not. Stephen Vladeck says it does not. The arithmetic says it does not. The historical record of the Federalist Papers says it does not. The forty-year documentary record of the doctrine’s construction says it does not. She is sincere. She is serious. She is wrong, and the wrongness is not a technical wrongness about a doctrinal minor point, but a foundational wrongness about the very structure of the American constitutional order.

The professional class will say I am insufficiently rigorous, that a proper treatment of the unitary executive theory requires engagement with the Federalist scholarly literature, that the Powell Memo/Olin/Scaife/Bradley/Koch/Federalist Society genealogy is a Kevin Kruse-style pop history and not the real story. This move is available and I decline it. The genealogy is documented in books published by university presses by scholars who spent careers on the material. Steven Teles’s The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement is the load-bearing academic treatment. Ann Southworth’s Lawyers of the Right is another. Amanda Hollis-Brusky’s Ideas with Consequences is another. Jane Mayer’s Dark Money covers the donor side. The pipeline is real, the funding is documented, the personnel are named, and the intellectual history is available to anyone who wants to check it. The professional class knows this, and refuses to say it in the venues where saying it would carry professional cost, because saying it would carry professional cost. This is what the pipeline was built to make expensive to say.

The professional class will say that I am ad hominem, that the origins of a doctrine do not determine its correctness, that the fossil-fuel money that funded the movement does not mean the movement’s conclusions are wrong, that many good doctrines have had disreputable early advocates. I concede the point in principle and reject it in application. The origins of a doctrine do not determine its correctness. But the origins of a doctrine are highly relevant to the question of why the doctrine has been elevated to the law of the land, what work it has been elevated to do, and whether its intellectual defenders are engaged in a good-faith jurisprudential project or in a legitimation exercise for a predetermined result. When the doctrine’s construction, funding, personnel, and target agencies all track the interests of a specific donor class, and when the doctrine’s actual operation delivers exactly the outcome that donor class needed — the disabling of the regulatory state, particularly of environmental and financial and labor regulation — the ad hominem dismissal is not an evasion of the argument. It is the argument.

The professional class will say, finally, that even if all of this is true, the doctrine is now the law, and the argument now must be an argument within the doctrine, that the country must accept the current jurisprudential settlement and work within it. This move is what makes the doctrine permanent. This move is the professional class agreeing, ex post, to normalize the outcome of the pipeline it declined to expose ex ante. This move is what a captured profession looks like from inside. The country does not owe the doctrine acceptance. The country owes itself the accurate account of where the doctrine came from, what it is for, and why the professional class that credentialed it did not stop it. The accurate account is available. The refusal is a choice.

⁂

There is a version of originalism that would be interesting, and rigorous, and coherent with the text and history of the Constitution. That version reads Article I as the center of gravity — the enumerated powers, the lawmaking function, the appropriation function, the war-declaring function, the impeachment function — and reads Article II as the office charged with faithful execution of what Article I produces. That version reads the take Care clause as a duty rather than a license. That version reads the Vesting Clause alongside its structural context — the Necessary and Proper Clause, the appointments provision requiring Senate consent, the appropriations requirement, the impeachment remedy — and concludes that the president is a constitutional officer inside a constitutional order and not the incarnation of a plebiscitary sovereignty. That version reads Federalist 69 as Alexander Hamilton clearly meant it — as a promise that the American executive would be smaller than the British king in every meaningful respect. That version is available. It exists in the historical record. It is the version Jefferson believed and Madison codified and the country actually adopted.

The doctrine currently marching under originalism’s name is not that doctrine. The doctrine currently marching under originalism’s name is Hamilton on his most expansive day, funded by mineral extraction, weaponized against the regulatory state, dressed in the vestments of the founding, and delivered by a judiciary staffed through a forty-year pipeline of donor-selected credentialing. It is not the Constitution’s original meaning. It is a doctrine of convenience, fitted to a purpose, defended by professionals whose sincerity is exactly what the pipeline needed and exactly what the pipeline selected for. Sincerity is the vestment. Conviction is the vestment. Legal-craft polish is the vestment. What the pipeline needed was a class of professionals who would perform the doctrine sincerely at the moment when the doctrine was being installed as law. It found them by selection, not by purchase. It credentialed them. It placed them. It got the doctrine installed. What it did not get, and what it will not get, is the country’s consent, because the country was not asked and would not have consented and now, increasingly, is looking up and asking who moved it into this house.

The country reads. The country, given a live enough moment and a stark enough contrast, walks to the shelf and pulls down Federalist 69 and reads it in the plain English in which it was written. The country closes the book knowing it has been lied to. The country notices that the doctrine currently governing it does not appear anywhere in the founding record it was told the doctrine came from. The country asks how the doctrine got here. The answer is available. The answer has been written down, by academics working in daylight, for forty years. The country can find it.

When the country finds the answer, the professional class that has been performing the doctrine sincerely, in analyst chairs and on panels and in essays and on podcasts, will discover that the register that was rewarded for the past four decades is no longer being rewarded. The professional class does not need to see this coming to be affected by it. It will be affected by it whether or not it sees it. The doctrine’s usefulness to the funders was always contingent on the country’s not looking up. When the country looks up, the doctrine loses the only real support it ever had, which was the willingness of everyone credentialed by it to keep performing it as if it were something else.

Sarah Isgur will continue to perform it, because she cannot afford to stop. The pipeline that credentialed her cannot afford to have her stop. The venues that platform her cannot afford to have her stop. The book contract and the analyst chair and the editorship cannot afford to have her stop. She will keep performing the thesis. The thesis will keep failing at the arithmetic Gorsuch spelled out on her own show. The country will keep, slowly, doing the reading. And at some point, the number of Americans who have read Federalist 69 in plain English will exceed the number of Americans who have been told what the Federalist Society said Federalist 69 means, and the doctrine will lose the only legitimacy it ever had, which was borrowed and can be recalled.

⁂

The title of this piece is her sentence. She wrote it in the Atlantic. She meant it as a description of a virtue. It is not a description of a virtue. It is a description of what happens when a small class of donors succeeds, over forty years, in installing a doctrine whose effect is the concentration of political power in a single office over a legislature that cannot recover its ground. Trump will be a more powerful president over a weaker presidency. Read that sentence again. Read it in the plain English in which she wrote it. The president is more powerful. The presidency is weaker. The presidency is the office. The president is the man. When the man is more powerful than the office, the office is no longer the constitutional office. The office is now the man’s. That is not a rebalancing of the separation of powers. That is the extinction of the separation of powers. That is what a monarchy is.

The country does not want a monarchy. The country did not vote for a monarchy. The country did not consent to the pipeline that installed the doctrine that produces the monarchy. The country was not asked.

The country is being asked now, whether it knows it or not. The answer is the same answer Jefferson gave, and Madison codified, and the country has, until this decade, mostly held. The answer is no.

The counterfeit fails when the mark reads.

Read Federalist 69. Read The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Read the pipeline’s own literature and see what the pipeline said, in its own words, about what it was building and for whom. And when the reading is done, notice who was performing the doctrine sincerely, in the analyst chairs and on the panels and in the essays, at the moment when the doctrine was being installed. Notice who told you the doctrine was originalism. Notice who told you the ratchet was a forcing function. Notice who told you the president being more powerful than the presidency was a rebalancing.

Notice, and then remember.

---

Go Deeper into the Circus

---