US Supreme Court Expands Presidential Power to Fire Independent Agency Officials
On June 29, 2026, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines to overturn a 91-year precedent, granting President Donald Trump authority to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and other independent agency officials without cause. The decision, rooted in constitutional separation of powers, dramatically shifts the balance between the executive branch and Congress, giving the president sweeping control over regulatory bodies like the FTC, NLRB, and CPSC. Dissenting justices warned of unprecedented executive power, while Congress faces pressure to respond with legislative action.
Cross-source coverage
Wire timeline
US Supreme Court Grants Trump Sweeping Power Over Independent Agencies, Exempts Federal Reserve
The US Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings that dramatically reshape the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, the six conservative justices overturned the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, ruling that President Trump can fire officials at agencies like the Federal Trade Commission without cause, as they exercise executive power. This gives Trump direct control over agencies such as the SEC, NLRB, and FEC. However, in a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled 5-4 that the Federal Reserve remains independent, requiring legitimate cause to remove a Fed governor. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in this carve-out, citing the Fed's unique structure. Justice Barrett dissented, noting tension between the two rulings. Commentators warn the Slaughter decision invites presidential abuse, allowing Trump to pressure agencies to ignore wrongdoing or waive safety rules, while the Fed exemption protects monetary policy and capitalist interests.
TheWeek feedSupreme Court Grants Trump Sweeping Power Over Independent Agencies, Exempts Federal Reserve
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 conservative majority ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, overturned a 91-year precedent from the 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision, granting President Trump broad authority to fire commissioners of independent federal agencies like the FTC without cause. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that agencies exercising executive power must be controlled by the president. In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the court ruled 5-4 that the Federal Reserve remains exempt from this new power, requiring legitimate cause for removal of its governors. Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent warned the ruling gives the president unprecedented power, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted tension between the two decisions. Commentators suggest the ruling could allow Trump to pressure agencies like the SEC, NLRB, and FEC to ignore wrongdoing or manipulate elections, though some analysts argue the Fed carve-out may lead to further exceptions.
TheWeek feedSupreme Court Grants Trump Sweeping Power Over Independent Agencies, Exempts Federal Reserve
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 conservative majority ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, overturned the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent, granting President Trump broad authority to fire officials at previously independent federal agencies like the FTC without cause. Chief Justice John Roberts argued that agencies exercising executive power must be controlled by the president. In a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled 5-4 that the Federal Reserve remains independent, requiring legitimate cause for removal of its governors. Justice Sotomayor's dissent warned the ruling elevates the president above coequal branches. Commentators noted the decision allows Trump to pressure agencies like the SEC, NLRB, and FEC, potentially enabling retaliation against investigators and safety regulators, while the Fed carve-out was criticized as inconsistent.
TheWeek feedSupreme Court Ruling Expands Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter affirms the president's power to fire heads of independent regulatory agencies at will, overturning a century-old precedent set by Humphrey's Executor. The decision allows President Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whom he originally appointed, and signals a major expansion of executive authority. The ruling dismantles the independence of regulatory commissions like the FTC and ICC, which were created during the Progressive era to insulate expert rulemaking from political interference. Legal analysts view this as a step toward the 'unitary executive' theory, which argues the president should have full control over all federal employees. The decision is expected to have broad implications for the structure of the executive branch and the balance of power between Congress and the presidency.
Government Executive - All ContentSupreme Court's Slaughter Ruling Expands Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter affirmed the president's power to remove heads of independent regulatory agencies at will, specifically allowing President Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. This decision overturns the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent that had protected agency independence for nearly a century. The ruling is seen as a major victory for the unitary executive theory, which argues the president has full control over the executive branch, including firing all federal employees. Experts warn this could be the beginning of a broader reshaping of the executive branch, potentially extending to all federal employees. The case advances a long-standing conservative campaign to centralize presidential authority over the bureaucracy.
Government Executive - All ContentSupreme Court Ruling Expands Presidential Removal Power Over Independent Agencies
The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter (2026) affirmed that the president can remove heads of independent regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission at will, overturning the nearly century-old precedent from Humphrey's Executor (1935). The decision allows President Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whom he had originally appointed. The ruling dismantles the independence of regulatory commissions established during the Progressive Era to insulate experts from political interference. Analysts see this as a major victory for the unitary executive theory, which holds that the president has full control over the executive branch, including firing all federal employees. The article notes the decision marks a significant expansion of presidential power and suggests the Supreme Court may further extend this authority to cover all federal workers.
Government Executive - All ContentRoberts Court Expands Presidential Power in Landmark Rulings on Agency Independence
The article analyzes two Supreme Court decisions issued June 29, 2025, under Chief Justice John Roberts: Trump v. Slaughter, which gives presidents at-will firing power over heads of executive-branch agencies like the FTC, and Trump v. Cook, which preserves the Federal Reserve's independence for now. The commentary argues that Slaughter arrogates power from Congress to the judiciary and the presidency, ignoring founding principles and precedent. While Slaughter expands presidential control over independent commissions, Cook upholds the Fed's historical independence, creating a potential contradiction. The analysis warns of increased presidential ability to target political opponents and disrupt financial regulation.
Washington MonthlyRoberts Court Expands Presidential Power, Diminishes Congress in Landmark Rulings
This article analyzes two pivotal Supreme Court decisions issued on June 29, 2025, under Chief Justice John Roberts. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court upheld President Trump's power to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter at will, ruling that any agency exercising 'executive power' is subject to presidential control, vastly expanding executive authority over independent regulatory commissions like the FTC, SEC, and FCC. However, in a separate case, Trump v. Cook, the Court shielded the Federal Reserve, requiring the president to show 'good cause' to remove a governor, citing the Fed's historic roots in early American banking. The analysis argues that the Slaughter decision usurps Congress's constitutional authority to structure agencies, representing a trend of the Roberts Court limiting legislative power while defining the boundaries of executive control.
Washington MonthlySupreme Court's Trump v. Slaughter Ruling Expands Presidential Control Over Federal Agencies; Analysis of Remaining Constraints
The Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter (2026) that the president may fire FTC commissioners without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent. The decision concentrates legislative, executive, and judicial powers in the presidency by eliminating removal protections for agency heads across independent commissions like the FTC. The article discusses how, despite this expansion of executive power, the Court can still constrain agency overreach through tools such as the nondelegation doctrine, major questions doctrine, and repudiated Chevron deference. Chief Justice Roberts noted the FTC's vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory powers do not belong constitutionally to a multi-member commission shielded from removal. Justice Gorsuch's concurrence highlighted broader concerns about delegated legislative and judicial powers to agencies. The article warns of executive overreach risks while outlining potential judicial checks.
Reason.comUS Supreme Court expands presidential power to fire agency heads, except at Federal Reserve
In a pair of landmark decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly expanded presidential authority to dismiss heads of independent federal agencies, overturning a 90-year-old precedent that required cause for removal like malfeasance. The 6-3 conservative majority ruled President Donald Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause, while a separate 5-4 decision temporarily blocks Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Chief Justice John Roberts authored both rulings. Critics warn the ruling undermines regulatory independence and could extend to lower-level civil servants protected since 1883. Republican leaders praised the decision as reducing bureaucratic overreach, while Democrats said it allows political interference in independent oversight. The White House signaled further action, with Trump calling the Fed ruling procedural and vowing to take 'appropriate action immediately.'
TheWeek feedGorsuch Warns Executive Overreach as Supreme Court Expands Trump's Power Over FTC
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, overturned the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor, allowing President Donald Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter at will. Chief Justice John Roberts argued the FTC exercises executive power and must be controlled by the president. Justice Neil Gorsuch, while concurring, warned that the decision grants the president control over vast legislative and judicial powers delegated to independent agencies, raising constitutional questions about separation of powers. Gorsuch hinted at future legal challenges to prevent unconstitutional lawmaking by the executive branch.
Reason.comHumphrey's Executor Has Been Slaughtered
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, struck down federal law prohibiting the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) except for cause, effectively overturning the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the New Deal-era framework has not withstood the test of time, restoring the principle that officers exercising executive power must be removable by the president. In a related case, Trump v. Cook, the Court blocked by a 5-4 vote President Trump's attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board, distinguishing central banking from enforcement agencies due to its historical pedigree. The analysis argues this restores constitutional accountability and curbs the power of independent agencies, though Justice Gorsuch warned that administrative powers are merely reassigned to the president, not eliminated.
City JournalSupreme Court Gives Trump Vast Power Over Independent Agencies, Except Federal Reserve
The article analyzes twin Supreme Court rulings issued on Monday that drastically expand presidential power over independent executive agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, the 6-3 ruling gives the president authority to fire commissioners of agencies like the Federal Trade Commission 'at will,' overturning the 90-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent. Chief Justice Roberts argued this restores constitutional separation of powers and cited Reconstruction-era arguments. However, in a separate 5-4 ruling, Trump v. Cook, the Court protected the Federal Reserve Board from such firings, preserving its independence. The author, Elie Mystal, criticizes the decisions as politically and economically motivated, noting they empower presidents to dismantle regulatory structures governing business, banking, health, and the environment, while shielding the monetary policy institution favored by capitalists. The three liberal justices dissented, arguing Congress intended these agencies to be independent and that the ruling destabilizes the entire federal regulatory framework. The article views the rulings as a terrifying expansion of executive power favoring the wealthy and corporate interests.
Article | The NationSupreme Court Gives President Sweeping New Power to Fire Independent Agency Heads
The article analyzes two U.S. Supreme Court rulings issued on the same day that dramatically reshape presidential power over independent federal agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, the 6-3 conservative majority ruled that President Trump can fire FTC commissioners at will, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent that had protected agency independence. However, in Trump v. Cook, the court ruled 5-4 that the president cannot fire members of the Federal Reserve Board. The author argues this selective protection favors business interests, leaving agencies regulating business, banks, public health, and environment vulnerable to political interference while insulating monetary policy. Chief Justice Roberts wrote both opinions, claiming constitutional separation of powers justifies the change. The three liberal justices dissented, warning the ruling undermines Congress's intent in creating these agencies and destabilizes federal regulation.
Article | The NationSupreme Court Issues Conflicting Rulings on Presidential Removal Power
On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two contradictory rulings on presidential removal power. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 conservative majority ruled that the president has absolute power to remove heads of executive branch agencies, striking down congressional limits as unconstitutional. This allows President Trump to fire Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter. However, in Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 majority (including two justices from the Slaughter majority) ruled that the president cannot fire Federal Reserve Board members at will; they can only be removed 'for cause,' preserving the Fed's independence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in Cook, noting the serious tension with Slaughter. Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion cited historical precedent from the First and Second Banks of the United States to justify the Fed's unique status. The article questions whether other agencies might also be exempt from the Slaughter rule, suggesting that some federal agencies are 'more equal than others' regarding presidential removal power.
Reason.comSupreme Court Issues Contradictory Rulings on Presidential Removal Power
The Supreme Court issued two conflicting decisions on June 29, 2026, regarding the president's power to remove heads of federal agencies. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 conservative majority ruled that the president has absolute power to remove executive branch agency heads, making it unconstitutional for Congress to limit that authority. This would allow President Trump to fire Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter. However, in Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 majority (including two justices from the Slaughter majority) ruled the president cannot arbitrarily fire Federal Reserve Board members, upholding 'for cause' removal protections to maintain the Fed's independence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in dissent that the rulings are in 'serious tension.' The article questions the compatibility of the two decisions and suggests the Federal Reserve may not be the only exception to the Slaughter rule, raising uncertainty about which agencies are protected from presidential removal.
Reason.comSupreme Court Rules on Presidential Removal Power: Fed Protected, FTC Vulnerable
The Supreme Court issued two landmark rulings on presidential removal power. In Trump v. Cook, a 5-4 decision held President Trump cannot summarily fire a Federal Reserve governor without cause, preserving the central bank's independence. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices. However, in Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 conservative majority ruled Trump can fire Democratic appointees at the Federal Trade Commission without cause, overturning the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent that had shielded independent agencies for nearly a century. The decisions divided the court: liberals would have upheld the status quo for all agencies. The ruling opens federal financial regulators to direct presidential control, marking a generational victory for conservatives seeking to dismantle the 'administrative state.' The article notes Trump previously signaled this war via a shadow-docket ruling in Wilcox v. Trump.
The New RepublicSupreme Court lets presidents fire independent regulators, rules for Trump in FTC case
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 29, 2026, that President Donald Trump had the authority to fire Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. The decision, written by the conservative majority, overturns the landmark 1935 precedent 'Humphrey's Executor,' which had protected commissioners of independent agencies from presidential removal except for cause. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that 'independent agencies are not so independent after all.' Trump celebrated the ruling as a 'BIG WIN,' stating it grants presidents a power long sought since the 1930s. Slaughter, who was fired in March 2025 for being inconsistent with Trump's priorities, expressed disappointment, warning the ruling will make FTC policy more political and reward presidential allies over merit-based decisions. The ruling expands presidential power over executive branch agencies.
US Top News and AnalysisFormer FTC Commissioner Urges Congress to Reassert Authority After Supreme Court Ruling
Former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter called on Congress to reassert its authority as a coequal branch of government following a 6-3 Supreme Court ruling that affirmed President Trump's power to fire her last year. The conservative-majority decision expanded presidential authority over independent agencies, challenging the traditional structure of regulatory bodies like the FTC. Slaughter argued that Congress must take legislative action to protect the independence of such agencies and restore its constitutional role. The ruling is seen as a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulators, with potential implications for consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, and other federal regulatory functions.
Just In NewsSupreme Court: President Can Fire Most Agency Heads, But Not Federal Reserve Board Members
On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions defining the scope of presidential removal power. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump has full authority to fire members of executive branch agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, overturning the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States. However, in Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled 5-4 that Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook could not be fired without specific procedural protections, citing the Fed's 'unique historical status and role' requiring cause-based removal and due process. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote both opinions, with a coalition of conservative and liberal justices in the Cook case. The rulings strengthen presidential control over independent agencies while preserving the Federal Reserve's independence. Critics, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued the decisions grant excessive presidential power.
Reason.com