The Supreme Court has upended nine decades of constitutional limits on presidential authority, ruling that Donald Trump can fire the leaders of independent federal agencies at will. The 6-3 decision dismantles a foundational barrier between executive power and regulatory independence that has shaped American governance since 1935.
The case centered on Trump's March 2025 termination of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter. Firing her by email, the White House stated that her continued service was "inconsistent with [the] administration's priorities." Slaughter sued, arguing she could only be removed for cause under federal law. A lower court agreed and ordered her reinstated.
Trump's legal team pushed the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey's Executor v United States, the 1935 precedent that had protected agency heads from arbitrary dismissal. The administration won. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissented sharply.
In her dissent, Sotomayor warned that the majority "undoes centuries of political practice" and grants the President "a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted." She argued that the Constitution's text, history, and decades of practice all support Congress's ability to limit removal of agency heads. "In holding otherwise," she wrote, "the Court gives the President... a license to act in defiance of those very laws" meant to protect the integrity of federal agencies.
The FTC enforces consumer protection and antitrust law. Its five-member commission is structured to require bipartisan balance, with no more than three commissioners from the same party. Congress imposed these constraints precisely to insulate the agency from partisan swings in the White House.
Before reaching the Supreme Court, appeals judges had rejected the government's request to freeze the lower court's order reinstating Slaughter. "Any ruling in the government's favor would have to defy binding, on-point, and repeatedly preserved supreme court precedent," two appellate judges wrote. The Trump administration then appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which granted a stay in September 2025 while allowing the case to proceed. Three justices opposed the stay.
Legal experts have flagged serious consequences. Lauren McFerran, former chair of the National Labor Relations Board, and Celine McNicholas, a former NLRB official, warned in an October 2025 report that removing these protections would undermine agency independence. "Agency leaders would be reluctant to engage in regulatory or enforcement actions without coordinating with the White House for fear of termination," they wrote.
The ruling transforms the relationship between the presidency and the federal bureaucracy. Where Congress once could shield agencies like the FTC, SEC, and NLRB from presidential purges, the President now holds near-total power to replace their leadership on a whim. The practical effect is to make every independent agency answerable directly to the sitting president's immediate priorities.
Author James Rodriguez: "This decision eviscerates the entire architecture of agency independence that's existed since the New Deal, and the Trump administration just drove a truck through 90 years of precedent to prove it."
Comments