Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Supreme Court’s 6-3 majority on June 29, 2026, striking down the Federal Trade Commission’s for-cause removal protections in a decision that overturns a 91-year-old precedent and reshapes presidential power over federal agencies.
In Trump v. Slaughter, Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, holding that the FTC’s requirement that the President remove commissioners only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” violates the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Gorsuch, along with Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Thomas (as to most provisions), joined the majority.
Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion, observing that “independent agencies are not so independent after all.” His concurrence raised broader concerns about the implications of the decision, noting that Congress has delegated vast legislative and judicial powers to agencies once thought to operate at a distance from presidential control.
The case arose from President Trump’s March 2025 firing of two Democratic FTC commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, without citing a cause. Slaughter sued, arguing her removal violated federal law and the Constitution. A federal district court agreed, declaring the removal unlawful and issuing an injunction to restore her to office. The Supreme Court stayed that order and granted certiorari before judgment.
The majority held that because the FTC exercises executive power—enforcing and administering some 80 statutes covering nearly every aspect of the nation’s economy—it must remain under direct presidential control. The Court noted the FTC has authority to promulgate rules with the force of law, investigate and enforce statutes through in-house adjudications, and file civil suits on behalf of the United States.
The decision overrules Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which for nearly a century permitted Congress to insulate agency leaders from at-will presidential removal. Roberts explained that Humphrey’s framework “has not withstood the test of time” and that the FTC’s powers, even in 1935, would be considered executive in nature. The Court found no constitutional basis for a “headless fourth branch” of government independent from presidential oversight.
The ruling applies to approximately two dozen multi-member agencies, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. However, the Court left open the possibility that the Federal Reserve, drawing on a distinct historical tradition of monetary-policy independence, might retain some removal protections.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Sotomayor argued that the decision ignored nearly 150 years of political practice and upended reliance interests that shaped the modern administrative state. She contended that Congress and presidents across the ideological spectrum have relied on Humphrey’s to create independent agencies designed to operate with some insulation from partisan politics.
Gorsuch’s concurrence acknowledged the stakes. He warned that while the decision restores executive power to its constitutional place, it also means the President now controls not only executive functions but also vast reservoirs of legislative and judicial powers that Congress delegated to independent agencies. He called on the Court to address these delegations through existing constitutional doctrines, including the nondelegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine, to prevent an excessive accumulation of power in the presidency.
