The U.S. Supreme Court has significantly expanded presidential authority over independent federal agencies, ruling 6-3 that President Donald Trump has the power to remove members of agencies previously protected from dismissal without cause. The decision overturns a 91-year-old legal precedent that had allowed Congress to shield certain executive branch officials from presidential firing.
The ruling marks one of the most consequential shifts in the balance of power between the White House and independent regulatory agencies in decades. At the center of the case was Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee whose dismissal by Trump became a test of presidential removal authority.
The court formally overturned its landmark 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which established that Congress could provide job protections for leaders of independent agencies performing quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions. That precedent had long served as the constitutional foundation for the independence of numerous federal commissions.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the earlier ruling could no longer stand, effectively ending the legal framework that had limited presidential authority over officials serving on multimember independent commissions.
The decision is expected to have sweeping consequences across the federal government. Beyond the Federal Trade Commission, roughly two dozen independent agencies could now face increased presidential control. These agencies oversee a broad range of responsibilities, including labor relations, workplace discrimination, consumer protection, federal employee rights, aviation accident investigations, product safety, and financial regulation.
Legal conservatives have argued for years that restrictions on a president's ability to remove executive officials violate the Constitution's separation of powers by limiting executive authority. The Supreme Court's conservative majority had already narrowed the scope of the 1935 precedent in several recent decisions before fully overturning it.
President Trump celebrated the ruling, describing it as a historic victory for presidential authority and noting that previous administrations had sought greater control over executive branch personnel since the 1930s.
The legal challenge emerged after Trump returned to office and dismissed leaders of several independent agencies despite statutory protections designed to prevent politically motivated removals. Lower courts generally ruled against the administration because they remained bound by the Humphrey's Executor precedent. The Supreme Court's decision removes that obstacle by replacing the longstanding constitutional framework.
The origins of the dispute date back to the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1935, the Supreme Court held that Roosevelt could not remove a Federal Trade Commission commissioner simply because the commissioner opposed elements of the New Deal. Congress had limited removals to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
Those protections remained in place for decades. At the FTC, commissioners could generally only be dismissed for specific misconduct or failure to perform their duties.
Trump dismissed Slaughter despite her term extending through 2029 after her renomination by former President Joe Biden. Rather than citing any of the statutory reasons traditionally required for removal, the administration argued that keeping her on the commission conflicted with its policy priorities.
