Supreme Court Overturns 90-Year Precedent, Grants President Power to Fire Independent Agency Commissioners
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 6-3 decision that the President has the constitutional authority to remove commissioners of independent federal agencies without cause, overturning the 1935 precedent set in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The ruling directly affects the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and extends to other multi-member independent agencies, while explicitly exempting the Federal Reserve Board.
The Ruling
Majority Opinion
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the five other conservative justices. The opinion stated that the Federal Trade Commission exercises executive power and that subordinates who exercise the president's power must be removable by the president to ensure accountability to the people.
The majority held that Congress cannot limit the president's power to fire heads of independent agencies, describing Humphrey's Executor as "a result in search of a rationale."
"Subordinates who exercise the president's power must be removable by the president to ensure accountability to the people."
— Chief Justice John Roberts, Majority Opinion
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent argued that the ruling grants the president power beyond that of the English Crown and undermines Congress's ability to create a workable regulatory system. Justice Kagan described the affected agencies as the product of "one basic vision."
Specific Cases
Trump v. Slaughter (FTC)
The case originated from the Trump administration's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March 2025. Slaughter, originally appointed by President Trump in 2018 to a Democratic seat and later reappointed by President Biden to a term ending in 2029, was notified of her immediate removal with the reason cited as her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."
A lower court had ruled her removal unlawful and ordered reinstatement. In September, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 emergency order temporarily permitting her removal pending a merits hearing.
Federal Reserve Board (Cook)
In a companion case involving Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, the court ruled 5-4 that Cook may remain in her position pending lower court litigation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices in the majority.
The majority found that the Federal Reserve's removal protection is consistent with a long tradition of central bank independence. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing the court was second-guessing the Constitution.
"Wall Street receives special treatment while agencies that protect everyday Americans do not."
— Former Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, criticizing the Federal Reserve exception
Related Firings
The ruling followed a May 2025 Supreme Court emergency order that allowed the removal of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris without comment. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the president's authority to fire these officials in a 2-1 decision, citing the "significant executive powers" of those agencies.
Background and Precedent
Humphrey's Executor (1935)
In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not have unchecked power to replace FTC commissioners. The court established that while presidents have broad power to remove purely executive officers, this authority does not extend to officials of agencies performing "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" duties. This precedent led to the creation of numerous multi-member independent agencies whose members could only be removed for cause.
Prior Court Action
During President Trump's first term, the Supreme Court limited Humphrey's Executor by permitting the firing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's single director, distinguishing single-director agencies from multi-member boards. Chief Justice Roberts stated at that time that Humphrey's Executor applies to multi-member agencies "that do not wield substantial executive power."
Affected Agencies
The decision extends presidential removal power to multi-member independent agencies, including:
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
- Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Currently, following the removal of two Democratic FTC commissioners, all remaining commissioners are Republicans. The Federal Reserve was the only agency explicitly exempted from the ruling.
Statements from Parties
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter argued that preserving the independence of bipartisan multi-member agencies allows decision-making to be based on merits, facts, and protecting the interests of the American people.
James M. Burnham, an attorney who served in both Trump administrations, stated that Congress's limits on removal powers have been unconstitutional from the beginning, asserting that there is no such thing as a truly independent agency.
"Ninety years of precedent has been completely and unequivocally overruled, greatly increasing presidential power at a time when it is most needed!"
— Former President Donald Trump, in a social media post
Broader Implications
The ruling ends Congress's ability to mandate bipartisan composition and for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners. The decision is considered by legal experts to be a significant expansion of presidential power, with predicted effects including increased policy changes between administrations as presidents of both parties exercise greater control over regulatory agencies.