Roberts Seila Law decision explicitly states that Congress can --- outside of the situation of heads of single-director independent agencies --- limit the removal powers of the President. Further, the logic you're using implies that the entire federal workforce is exempt from literally any employment law of any sort. You may respond that the administration's pointy eggheads are going to craft persuasive arguments to that effect, but I'd be happy to put money on their likelihood of success. What do you say?

I'm not interested in the politics of this, as you so often are. I'm just interested in people having a clear understanding of the dynamics at play here --- in people nerding out on legal issues. Except under a fringe interpretation of Unitary Executive theory, the President cannot simply ignore statutes like the CSRA.

The politics is inextricable from this since we’re talking about separation of powers. There is always a tension between democracy and the government’s status as an employer or contracting party. But if the political issue is loyalty of the federal bureaucracy to the agenda of the elected president, can Congress constrain the president’s ability to act on that political issue? I think that’s a very different analysis.

And there’s no such thing as “unitary executive theory.” It’s a label created to make the meaning of Article II seem somehow esoteric. It’s like saying “first amendment theory” or “equal protection theory.”

None of this is responsive to anything I just wrote.

It’s responsive to this point:

> You may respond that the administration's pointy eggheads are going to craft persuasive arguments to that effect, but I'd be happy to put money on their likelihood of success.

I’m saying the arguments might be more persuasive than you think given the context in which they will arise. Separation of powers cases often arise against the background of novel political situations that require application of abstract separation of powers principles to novel situations.

We are facing such a situation today. Prior to 2017, we had never confronted before the issue of federal employees declaring they would use their employment to frustrate the legitimate political objectives of the duly elected president. That then became a major issue in which Trump campaigned, and won. (It’s point #9 on the GOP 2024 platform: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-pa....)

All this is relevant not because politics, but because it starkly illustrates a constitutional issue. Voting for the president is the means by which democratic influence is exercised over the exercise of executive power. Invoking generic employment law to frustrate the ability of the president to effectuate the very executive reforms on which he campaigned raises a specific constitutional issue.

The opposing view here is that, if voters want to effectuate significant reforms in the structure and behavior of the executive, then Congress must be the one to do that. Maybe that’s true but it seems very odd to me.

The clearly expressed will of Congress is that federal employees are not typically to be classed as at-will employees. This current Supreme Court majority explicitly said Congress has the authority to constrain executive branch HR policy. I'm not sure I've read an opinion before where Congress made a black-letter declaration of some policy, and the court overturned it because of the perceived will of the narrow majority of voters for the President, but hey, you do you.

I really don't much care about the underlying principles here. I'm a fan of at-will employment. I generally (though with nothing resembling the fervor of this administration) think that the federal employment rolls are bloated and inefficient. But I also believe what I learned in St. Barnabus Elementary about the separation of powers: Congress makes the laws, the President executes them.

This letter does not say severance. It is deferred resignation. During the 'notice period' of 8 months, as far as I can tell the only definite derogation is that there will be no return to office required during those 8 months.

While I'm sure some people will end up with gardening leave for those 8 months, it's not guaranteed by the letter (my emphasis):

> If you resign under this program, you [..] will be exempted from all applicable in-person work requirements until September 30, 2025

> I understand my employing agency will likely make adjustments in response to my resignation including moving, eliminating, consolidating, reassigning my position and tasks, reducing my official duties, and/or placing me on paid administrative leave until my resignation date.

> I will assist my employing agency with completing reasonable and customary tasks

Seems AP are reporting on this exact same thing, I'm not sure why their read is that this is a 'buy out' or 'severance'. All it is is a waiver of Return To Office for 8 months provided you resign at the end of those 8 months.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42861210 provides more context:

"Employees who accept deferred resignation should promptly have their duties re-assigned or eliminated and be placed on paid administrative leave until the end of the deferred resignation period (generally, September 30, 2025, unless the employee has elected another earlier resignation date), unless the agency head determines that it is necessary for the employee to be actively engaged in transitioning job duties, in which case employees should be placed on administrative leave as soon as those duties are transitioned."