The Supreme Court fundamentally restructured the relationship between the president and the federal bureaucracy on Monday, ruling 6-to-3 that Donald Trump can fire independent government regulators who don't align with his agenda, regardless of laws designed to protect their positions. The decision dismantles protections that have existed for nearly a century.
But the court did not go all the way. In a separate 5-to-4 ruling on the same day, the justices blocked Trump from removing Lisa D. Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve, finding that the nation's central bank deserves unique protection from presidential interference.
The two decisions reveal the court's competing impulses: an eagerness to consolidate executive power in the hands of the president, and a recognition that some institutions require insulation from political pressure.
A historic shift in power
The primary case centered on Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission. Trump fired her in March 2025, citing that her service was "inconsistent with my administration's priorities." Federal law had long held that presidents could only remove FTC commissioners for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Slaughter sued to challenge her ouster.
The court's conservative majority overturned that precedent, a 1935 ruling called Humphrey's Executor v. United States that had protected independent agencies from political purges. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that "neither Congress nor the courts may saddle" the president with executive branch officials "with whom he cannot work."
The implications stretch far beyond the FTC. Over two dozen federal agencies, including those regulating consumer protection, worker safety, environmental standards, and nuclear security, now face vulnerability to presidential removal of their leadership. These agencies were deliberately designed by Congress to operate at arm's length from political control.
Trump immediately celebrated the outcome on social media, calling it a "Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers." The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor reading a lengthy statement from the bench warning of chaos to come.
Sotomayor argued that the decision would "transform" independent agencies "in ways that those who created them never could have expected and actively sought to avoid." She stated that the president had been granted "unbridled authority" that "neither the people, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him."
The ruling signals the culmination of a yearslong effort by the conservative legal movement to strip away constraints on presidential power. Even before Trump returned to office, the court's Republican-appointed majority had been chipping away at the framework of independent agencies.
The decision immediately opens the door for Trump to replace Democratic leaders at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, among others, with officials more aligned with his priorities.
The Federal Reserve gets an exception
The court's treatment of Lisa Cook presented a different question. Trump had sought her removal from the Fed in early 2025, alleging mortgage fraud without providing evidence or due process.
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a coalition that included Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices, rejected the administration's handling of the matter. He called the government's argument that Cook had received fair process "halfhearted" and stated bluntly: "That will not do."
The court found that Cook was entitled to "some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response" before being removed. Roberts emphasized that such protections reflected basic principles of fairness, not an obstacle to presidential authority.
The justices reasoned that the Federal Reserve occupies a special position in American governance. Its independence from political pressure is essential to its mission of controlling inflation and managing the nation's money supply. Allowing a president to remove a Fed governor over unproven allegations would undermine that independence and risk economic turmoil.
Cook, in a statement, said Trump's move to fire her was "an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people."
The ruling permits Cook to remain in her position while litigation continues in lower courts. Trump can still attempt her removal, but only if courts find that any charges against her are valid.
The FTC itself, created in 1914 to protect consumers from deceptive practices and monopoly abuse, operates with a five-member commission where no more than three can belong to the same political party. Slaughter was first nominated by Trump in 2018, then renominated by President Biden in 2023 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate to a term running until 2029.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "The court has handed the presidency a weapon it didn't have before, and only the most optimistic observer could assume it won't get used."
Comments