Critics of the Supreme Court have argued that it has too often deferred to the Trump administration and that the conservative justices are under the sway of suspicious propositions like the unitary executive theory and the major questions doctrine.

What we are actually seeing at the Supreme Court is the chance to rebalance the separation of powers in the federal government.

On Monday the court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could decide the fate of dozens of independent administrative agencies and the president’s ability to control them. The court’s ruling in the case should help elaborate a coherent vision of a renewed constitutional arrangement — one that we have seen hints and glimpses of in recent years from the Supreme Court.

As decades have passed and Congress’s influence has shrunk, the outcome of Slaughter has vast implications for the future — and political legitimacy — of the three government branches. It could offer the chance to see how the major questions doctrine and the unitary executive theory add up to a renewed integrity for the separation of powers.

Our founders would be shocked by the current constitutional order. Not by a presidency that has ballooned beyond recognition — they were well aware of the threats a power-hungry president could pose — but by the state of Congress, for not more jealously guarding its power and prestige. They would be confused that so many of its more than 500 members seem to have no further ambition than to act like glorified Instagram influencers.

As Congress has receded and presidents have filled the void through executive orders, the Supreme Court has been forced to step in to referee our most bitter political disputes, undermining the court’s legitimacy and leading to calls for court reform.