This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups. The best way to support our work—and unlock exclusive legal analysis—is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)

Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution grants the president broad power to remove the heads of “independent” federal agencies. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the 6–3 majority largely framed the decision, Trump v. Slaughter, as tightening presidential control over agencies that safeguard key aspects of the national economy.

Greater presidential control has upsides and downsides—in dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicts that the ruling will concentrate unprecedented and possibly dangerous levels of power in the president’s hands. But the opinions on both sides miss a key point: In some circumstances, the decision will cause the president to have basically no control over affected agencies, particularly when the president has an ambitious agenda for the agency.

Removal protection was one of the mutually reinforcing design features of independent agencies that promoted stability and bipartisanship. Those agencies are often structured as multimember commissions with staggered, time-limited terms. Incoming presidents therefore inherit holdover commissioners, nominating new members for Senate consideration as vacancies emerge. Since commissions also typically contain only a certain number of members from any one political party, the two parties would often collaborate to confirm nominees from each.

Slaughter disrupts this design and largely eliminates its incentives for bipartisanship. Presidents will now routinely remove any commissioners from........

© Slate