The Supreme Court handed President Trump a major expansion of executive authority on Wednesday, ruling 6-3 along ideological lines that he can fire officials at independent federal agencies without cause. The decision overturns a 1935 precedent that had shielded agency leaders from political removal for nearly a century.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, declared: “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.” The ruling formally overturns Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had allowed Congress to insulate officials at agencies like the Federal Trade Commission from presidential firing except for specific causes such as inefficiency or malfeasance.
The immediate impact is that Trump can now fire Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee whom he originally named to a Democratic seat in 2018 but who was later renominated by President Biden for a term through 2029. Trump removed her last year, citing a lack of alignment with his administration’s priorities rather than any statutory cause. Lower courts had blocked that firing, bound by the 1935 ruling, but the Supreme Court’s decision now clears the way.
The case is part of a broader conservative legal push to dismantle what critics call the “administrative state.” Legal conservatives have long argued that independent agencies violate the separation of powers by exercising executive authority without direct presidential control. The Supreme Court had already chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor in recent years, but this ruling erases it entirely.
Roughly two dozen multimember agencies across the government are now affected, including those that oversee labor disputes, federal employee rights, workplace discrimination, credit unions, product recalls, and plane accident investigations. The ruling allows a president to install commissioners and board members who align with his political agenda, effectively ending the tradition of bipartisan or independent leadership at these bodies.
The decision also comes amid a broader legal battle over presidential power. In a related case, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, signaling that the fight over independent agency protections is far from over. The Fed’s unique structure may still offer some insulation, but the ruling on the FTC sets a sweeping precedent.
Trump’s firing of Slaughter was a deliberate test case. After retaking the White House, he removed several independent agency heads despite statutory protections, knowing the lower courts would likely uphold the old precedent. The Supreme Court’s willingness to overturn its own ruling gives him a powerful tool to reshape the executive branch. Critics warn that the decision could politicize agencies that were designed to operate with a degree of independence from the White House.
The ruling has also sparked concerns among some GOP senators about the broader implications for economic policy. As GOP senators sound the alarm over Trump’s economic disconnect, the new firing power could accelerate policy shifts at agencies like the FTC, which enforces antitrust and consumer protection laws. Supporters argue that the president, as the elected head of the executive branch, should have full control over all federal officials.
The case originated from the same agency that gave rise to the 1935 precedent: the Federal Trade Commission. In that earlier ruling, the Supreme Court blocked President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing an FTC commissioner who opposed his New Deal agenda. Now, the court has flipped that logic, giving Trump the authority he sought.
Ella Lee contributed to this report.
