And it seems very important that it's allegations by and to people who work for the President. All he'd have to do is order his subordinates to make allegations against officials subject only to for-cause removal and he could remove anyone.

Right, if this stands, for-cause removal protections are dead. The carveout SCOTUS tried to make for the Federal Reserve would mean nothing.

(imo it should mean almost nothing and the distinction was bullshit, but I also like having an economy that's only in a major and potentially recoverable freefall and not oops all crashes so I hope the distinction gets upheld)

Yes, it was completely arbitrary.

Love to be hoping for that to save us

Get ready for some stupid amicus briefs taking very seriously the importance of knowing the scope of the president’s power 1816–36 to remove five of the 25 directors of the Second Bank of the United States

That is different because -----------

All the dashes stand in for the phrase "John Roberts want stock portfolio up, no down."

Roberts suggested in a footnote in Seila Law and then the court flippantly adopted the “Fed is different because of the history of the 2nd Bank” handwave, but IIRC the charter doesn’t spell out how removals work other than the president can only remove his appointees but not shareholder appointees

The founding era is characterized by a lot more flexibility (and tension & conflict) over the constitutional order than the Roberts Court “history & tradition” formulation could ever permit The history & tradition is the framers disagreed and tried a lot of a weird shit

There's nothing funnier than conservative goons thinking that their JDs qualify them to understand history so well that they can make law based on it - something actual historians balk at.