The Supreme Court on June 29 handed President Trump sweeping new power to fire leaders of independent federal agencies, overturning a 91-year-old precedent that had shielded these officials from removal at the president’s whim. In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the conservative majority ruled that the president can remove members of the Federal Trade Commission for any reason, striking down a federal law that had limited such firings to cases of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, argued that the president must be able to remove subordinates who exercise executive power. “The President must have the assistance of officers he can trust,” Roberts wrote. “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work.”
The case centered on Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner whom Trump fired in March 2025 without citing any legal grounds. Instead, Trump’s letter simply stated that her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.” A lower court had ruled the firing unlawful, citing the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that presidents could not remove members of independent agencies at will.
The 1935 precedent emerged from President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to fire an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements. In that case, the Court unanimously held that while the president has power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC, whose duties “are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” For nearly a century, Humphrey’s Executor stood as the constitutional foundation for independent agencies.
Roberts acknowledged the precedent but argued it rested on a flawed view of the FTC’s actual role. The modern FTC, he noted, “enforces and administers some 80 statutes, which cover almost every facet of our Nation’s economy,” and exercises executive power through investigations and enforcement actions. Because the FTC exercises such power, Roberts concluded, its commissioners must be removable by the president at will.
The ruling applies broadly to approximately two dozen multi-member independent agencies created by Congress to operate with some independence from the White House. These include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—agencies that Congress designed to protect workers from discrimination, ensure fair federal hiring, and safeguard consumers from unsafe products. The decision throws the protections of all these agencies into question.
One major exception limits the ruling’s immediate reach: the Court ruled 5-4 that the Federal Reserve’s independence remains intact—for now. Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor whom Trump sought to fire, can remain in her position pending further litigation in lower courts. Roberts indicated that the Federal Reserve, unlike the FTC, has a “distinct historical tradition” and does not fall under the president’s “general administrative control.”
The three liberal justices dissented sharply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a 49-page dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the decision fundamentally reshapes the government. “The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted,” Sotomayor argued, “elevating him above his once-coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.” She warned that the ruling “reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.”
The decision also effectively ends Congress’s requirement that the FTC maintain bipartisan leadership. The law mandates that no more than three of the five commissioners come from any one political party. After Trump fired two Democratic commissioners last year, only Republicans remained on the FTC. Now, nothing prevents a president from removing all members of the opposing party and leaving seats vacant.
The ruling represents a major victory for advocates of the “unitary executive” theory—the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court had already begun chipping away at Humphrey’s Executor, allowing Trump to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But that decision applied only to single-director agencies. The Slaughter decision extends presidential removal power to multi-member boards, completing what Roberts called the final blow to Humphrey’s Executor. “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, the Court overrules it,” Roberts wrote.
Sources
- NPR — Core reporting on the 6-3 decision, the overturning of Humphrey’s Executor, Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion, Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, and the implications for independent agencies including the FTC, EEOC, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
- SCOTUSblog — Detailed opinion analysis of Trump v. Slaughter, the 91-year precedent being overturned, the majority and dissenting opinions, and the ruling’s application to multi-member agencies.
- The Guardian — Reporting on the Supreme Court ruling that Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies and the 90-year precedent being ended.
- Reuters — Coverage of the Supreme Court backing Trump’s firing of FTC member Rebecca Slaughter and expanding presidential powers over independent agencies.
- The New York Times — Reporting on the twin rulings (Slaughter and Cook cases), the expansion of Trump’s power, and the Federal Reserve’s exception.
