“The conservative legal movement has for decades insisted that an originalist understanding of the Constitution — that is, an interpretation that looks to how the document was understood at the time of the nation’s founding — demands letting the president remove executive branch officials as he sees fit,” the New York Times reports.

“That follows, the argument goes, from the ‘unitary executive theory,’ which says the president should have complete control of the executive branch and that congressional efforts to shield the leaders of independent agencies from politics should be forbidden.”

“In September, though, a leading originalist law professor, Caleb Nelson, challenged that conventional wisdom in an article that attracted attention in legal circles and beyond. He wrote that the text of the Constitution and the historical evidence surrounding it in fact grant Congress broad authority to shape the executive branch, including by putting limits on the president’s power to fire people.”