On September 22, 2025, the US Supreme Court announced it would consider a significant expansion of President Donald Trump’s power over independent federal agencies, potentially overturning a nearly century-old precedent that limits when presidents can remove agency board members. This decision could reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory bodies, with far-reaching implications for how agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) operate.
The case centers on a challenge to Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), a landmark Supreme Court ruling that established protections for commissioners of independent agencies. In that decision, the Court unanimously held that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not fire an FTC commissioner without cause, such as misconduct or neglect of duty. This ruling paved the way for the creation of powerful independent agencies tasked with regulating critical areas like consumer protection, labor relations, and federal employment disputes. These agencies were designed to operate with a degree of autonomy, insulated from direct presidential control to ensure decisions were based on expertise rather than political pressures.
However, the Humphrey’s Executor decision has long been a point of contention for conservative legal scholars who argue that independent agencies should be more accountable to the president, as the head of the executive branch. The Justice Department, representing President Donald Trump, contends that the president should have the authority to remove agency board members at will to effectively carry out his agenda. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control.” Sauer further noted that courts lack the authority to reinstate fired officials, only to award back pay.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court permitted President Donald Trump to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner, while the broader case challenging Humphrey’s Executor proceeds. This ruling follows a series of similar decisions allowing the president to remove board members from three other independent agencies, including Gwynne Wilcox of the NLRB and Cathy Harris of the MSPB. The Court’s conservative majority did not provide detailed reasoning for allowing Slaughter’s firing, as is typical for decisions on the emergency docket. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, arguing that Congress explicitly prohibited such presidential removals. “Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President,” Kagan wrote. The dissenters expressed concern that eroding the independence of these agencies could lead to regulatory decisions driven by politics rather than expertise.
The upcoming case, set for arguments in December 2025, will determine whether the Court overturns or narrows Humphrey’s Executor. A decision to grant the president broader authority to fire agency board members could fundamentally alter the structure of independent agencies. These bodies, including the FTC, NLRB, and MSPB, play critical roles in enforcing consumer protections, investigating unfair labor practices, overseeing union elections, and resolving federal employment disputes. Opponents of expanding presidential power, including Slaughter’s legal team, argue that allowing the president to remove congressionally confirmed board members at will risks politicizing regulatory decisions. They assert that such a change would undermine the expertise-driven mission of these agencies. “If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives,” Slaughter’s attorneys stated. The Justice Department, however, argues that the president’s ability to execute his agenda is hindered when agency officials operate beyond his control. This tension between presidential authority and agency independence lies at the heart of the case.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear this case before it has fully worked through lower courts signals its urgency and potential impact. Additionally, Wilcox and Harris, the fired NLRB and MSPB board members, have asked the Court to consider their cases alongside Slaughter’s, highlighting the broader implications for multiple agencies. The Court has also suggested that the president’s removal power may face limits at certain agencies, such as the Federal Reserve. This issue is likely to be tested in a separate case involving fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook, which could further clarify the boundaries of presidential authority.
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments in December, the outcome of this case could redefine the relationship between the executive branch and independent federal agencies. A ruling in favor of expanded presidential power could usher in an era of greater executive control over regulatory bodies, potentially affecting how laws are enforced in areas like consumer protection, labor rights, and federal employment. Conversely, upholding Humphrey’s Executor would preserve the autonomy of these agencies, ensuring their decisions remain grounded in expertise rather than political influence. For now, the Court’s recent decisions signal a conservative majority inclined to reconsider long-standing precedents, setting the stage for a pivotal legal battle with significant consequences for the structure of the federal government.
