But what does "conclusive and preclusive" actually mean?

Josh Blackman | 12.17.2025 12:32 AM

Since Trump v. United States was decided, I have remained uncertain how the case would fit into the constitutional canon. It was unlikely that a former President would be indicted for actions taken while he was in office. How would this case interact with other aspects of the Supreme Court's separation of powers jurisprudence?

Trump v. Slaughter provides an answer. During oral argument, there was an extended discussion of the "conclusive and preclusive" standard. That phrase appears more than thirty times in the transcript! Indeed, I'm not even sure how Slaughter would have been argued without Trump v. United States. Then again, if Trump had come out the other way, we likely would not have a President Trump, and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter would still be working at the FTC.

Solicitor General Sauer repeatedly invoked Trump v. United States. For example, Sauer said the President's removal power was "conclusive and preclusive, so any review of arguably bad reasons for the President to remove an executive officer would be subject to the political process." He maintained that removal is not "subject to judicial review and certainly not subject to statutes regulating that."

Amit Agarwal, counsel for Slaughter, also favorably cited the immunity decision several times. Agarwal was pressed on which executive agencies could be converted into five-member commissions. His answer, given in various ways, turned on the "conclusive and preclusive" standard. For........

© Reason.com