When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Trump v. Slaughter, it didn’t just overturn a 91-year-old precedent—it fundamentally reshaped the balance of power between the President and federal agencies. But what caught my eye wasn’t the ruling itself, as significant as it was, but Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion. Personally, I think Gorsuch’s commentary on the FCC’s actions, particularly its spat with Jimmy Kimmel, reveals a deeper unease about the expanding reach of regulatory agencies. It’s not just about Kimmel or the FCC; it’s about the broader question of who wields power in our increasingly bureaucratized society.
What makes this particularly fascinating is how Gorsuch uses the FCC’s threat against Kimmel as a case study for agency overreach. The FCC, an independent agency, has long been a thorn in the side of media companies, but its recent actions feel different. When FCC Chairman Brendan Carr publicly criticized Kimmel and hinted at regulatory consequences, it wasn’t just a rebuke—it was a flex of power. Gorsuch’s point, I believe, is that these agencies operate with minimal oversight and broad authority, often with little statutory guidance. This raises a deeper question: Are we comfortable with unelected officials holding such sway over industries that shape public discourse?
From my perspective, the Kimmel incident is a symptom of a larger trend. Agencies like the FCC, FTC, and SEC have become de facto lawmakers, setting rules that affect everything from corporate behavior to free speech. Gorsuch’s reference to the SEC’s climate disclosure rules and the FTC’s non-compete ban underscores this point. What many people don’t realize is that these agencies aren’t just enforcing laws—they’re interpreting them, often in ways that reflect the political priorities of the moment. If you take a step back and think about it, this blurs the line between regulation and governance, leaving businesses and individuals at the mercy of shifting bureaucratic winds.
One thing that immediately stands out is Gorsuch’s warning about the implications of the ruling. By giving the President more control over these agencies, the Court has effectively reassigned their powers to the executive branch. In theory, this could curb overreach, but it also opens the door to politicization. A detail that I find especially interesting is Gorsuch’s suggestion that a business out of favor with the White House might face coordinated attacks from multiple agencies. What this really suggests is that the problem isn’t just agency independence—it’s the concentration of power itself.
This brings me to the broader cultural and political implications. The FCC’s actions against Kimmel, whether justified or not, highlight the tension between regulation and free expression. Late-night comedy has long been a space for political commentary, but when regulators step in, it sends a chilling message. Personally, I think this is where Gorsuch’s opinion shines—it’s not just a legal argument but a cultural critique. He’s asking us to consider whether we want government agencies dictating the boundaries of public discourse.
Looking ahead, the ruling will likely spark a new round of debates about the role of federal agencies. Congress may need to step in to clarify their authority, or the Court itself may be called upon to further define these boundaries. What this really suggests is that the battle over regulatory power is far from over. In my opinion, the Kimmel incident is just the tip of the iceberg—it’s a snapshot of a much larger struggle over who gets to shape the rules of our society.
In the end, Gorsuch’s concurrence isn’t just a legal footnote; it’s a call to action. It forces us to confront the uncomfortable reality that power, once concentrated, is difficult to rein in. Whether you agree with his perspective or not, one thing is clear: the lines between regulation, politics, and free expression are blurring, and we’d better start paying attention.
