Supreme Court grants Trump power to fire independent agency commissioners
Supreme Court overturns 91-year-old precedent, ruling 6-3 that Trump can fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, dramatically expanding presidential power over independent agencies.
Objective Facts
In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that President Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause was lawful. Slaughter was presented with no such reason for her removal, only told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities." Since its creation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1914, Congress has held that commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." The Supreme Court overruled 91 years of precedent that allowed Congress to insulate certain executive branch officials with firing protections, and formally overturns the high court's 1935 landmark decision, Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The logic of the decision extends to other agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, where Trump also has fired board members.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her 49-page dissent, wrote that "the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions," predicting "chaos will follow." Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) stated, "The Supreme Court just overturned well-established precedent to greenlight Donald Trump's threats to independent federal agencies." Rebecca Slaughter herself warned that "the consequences of this ruling will be felt by every American" and that "Today's ruling makes it possible for presidents to fire watchdogs who won't put politics over principle, and replace them with lapdogs."
Right-Leaning Perspective
The conservative majority cast the decision as returning the presidency to its proper form, with Chief Justice John Roberts saying Trump's expansive firing power is by design because "When power is exercised well, the people know whom to thank; when power is exercised poorly, they know whom to blame—and whom to fire." City Journal conservative analyst argued "That's a unitary, not an imperial, presidency, and it's a hallmark of republican government," noting the president "remains constrained by statutes, appropriations, courts, Congress, elections, and the Constitution itself," and that "if the people dislike how the FTC enforces the law, they should be able to blame—and replace—the president."
Deep Dive
Humphrey's Executor dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's tenure, when Roosevelt fired an FTC commissioner in 1933 who had been appointed by President Herbert Hoover; the Supreme Court unanimously agreed at the time that his dismissal was improper. Part of the goal of the conservative political initiative Project 2025, which supported the second term of President Donald Trump, was to overturn Humphrey's Executor. During Trump's first term, the Supreme Court had already chipped away at the precedent when it let Trump fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because the CFPB is run by a single director; Chief Justice Roberts then described Humphrey's Executor as applying only to multimember agencies that do not wield substantial executive power, and with the latest decision, the conservative majority has found reason to give the president power over multimember agencies too. In the majority opinion, Roberts pointed out that the FTC in its present state enforces and administers some 80 statutes that cover nearly every facet of the economy, stating that "The tasks it undertakes are 'the very essence of 'execution' of the law.'" Sotomayor's core argument was that "the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions." The right views this as restoring proper constitutional separation of powers by ensuring all executive power flows through an accountable president; the left views it as dismantling congressional checks on presidential power and creating space for political capture of regulatory bodies designed to operate at arm's length from partisan politics. The ruling's immediate implications extend to roughly two dozen multimember agencies across the government, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The practical upshot is that the members of dozens of commission-style agencies likely now serve at the pleasure of the President, providing the President with a powerful tool to impose policy priorities. Conservative groups have spent years planning by conservative groups to overrule Humphrey's Executor as part of the unitary executive project. What remains unresolved is how far the logic extends—whether judges, central banks, or military officers might also be subject to at-will removal, questions the Court indicated it would address separately.