Yes, it's a very weird situation where the Congressional law seems to suggest that removal can only occur for certain sufficient causes and the administration claims that it has one of those, but the person being removed claims the administration doesn't have such a cause.

Yes, but I’m not sure it’s really an “out.” If frivolous but unreviewable “for cause” fig leaves are decisive to the Court, I would assume this administration would be more than happy to accompany every executive branch firing with one. The more implausible the better, to show strength.

Sure, I meant an "out" from the Court's subjective perspective. It would not be a satisfying resolution.

maybe i'm alone on this, but i actually think the wilcox carve out was so analytically silly and used up so much capital that there are probably 2 r-appointed justices committed enough to see the distinction through.

I predict they affirm "for cause" protections but allow him to fire Cook just to give him a win.

Of couse an unreviewable "for cause" exception is not a "for cause" exception at all.