Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Case That Could Deepen Presidential Power Under Roberts’ Conservative Majority

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

The Supreme Court is poised to revisit one of the most consequential pillars of modern administrative law, a 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential control over independent federal agencies. For years, Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s conservative bloc have steadily expanded the power of the presidency, a trend that accelerated well before Donald Trump returned to the White House. Now, with a new case set for argument on Monday, they may be ready to take their most dramatic step yet.

At the center of the dispute is the court’s 1935 decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, which held that presidents cannot remove leaders of independent agencies without cause. That ruling has shaped the structure of the federal government for generations, protecting agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission from political interference and shielding their leaders from dismissal at a president’s whim.

Trump’s second-term actions have brought the issue to a head. In the opening months of his presidency, he has already dismissed nearly every independent agency official he has sought to remove—despite the limits established under Humphrey’s Executor. Among those ousted was Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the FTC and the central figure in the case now before the court. Leaders at other agencies have also been forced out, including officials from the MSPB and NLRB.

Only two officials have survived attempts to remove them: Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Shira Perlmutter, who oversees the U.S. Copyright Office. The court has already signaled that the Federal Reserve occupies a unique position within the government, and Trump has said he wants Cook dismissed over allegations of mortgage-related misconduct—charges she rejects outright.

The upcoming case has been closely watched by advocates of the “unitary executive” theory, a conservative legal doctrine holding that all executive power flows directly from the president and that the Constitution grants the White House sweeping authority over the federal bureaucracy. The theory has long been embraced by conservative legal groups and scholars who argue that independent agencies undermine democratic accountability by placing powerful regulators beyond the reach of elected leadership.

The FTC, the same agency involved in Humphrey’s Executor, is once again the focal point. If the court overturns or weakens the 1935 decision, presidents could gain broad authority to fire agency heads at will, reshaping the balance of power across the administrative state and weakening the independence of regulators overseeing labor, consumer protections, financial markets, broadcasting policy and other areas fundamental to modern governance.

Roberts has signaled his sympathy for such an interpretation in earlier rulings. Since 2010, the court has chipped away at restrictions on removal power. In 2020, Roberts wrote the majority opinion allowing Trump to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ruling that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception.” And in the court’s sweeping 2024 decision on presidential immunity, Roberts included firing authority within a class of powers he described as “conclusive and preclusive,” suggesting that Congress cannot impose meaningful limits on them.

But legal historians and even some conservative scholars say the court’s premise may rest on shaky historical ground. Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor and noted originalist, has argued that both the text and early history of the Constitution paint a more complicated picture of removal power than today’s conservatives acknowledge.

Several historians, including Fordham University’s Jane Manners, have also submitted detailed research to the court challenging the assumption that early American lawmakers intended presidents to wield unchecked authority over agency personnel. Manners, however, doubts the current majority will be swayed.

Slaughter’s legal team has embraced these historical analyses, contending that constitutional tradition supports limits on presidential firing authority and that the court should reaffirm long-standing protections for independent regulators. The Biden-era Justice Department, now tasked with defending Trump’s position, has taken the opposite view. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that presidents must have broad leeway to remove officials who stand in the way of implementing their agenda, calling the 1935 precedent “egregiously wrong” and ripe for overturning.

The case also carries implications for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. A secondary question before the court concerns whether judges have the power to reinstate officials even if a firing is deemed unlawful. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote earlier this year that fired officials might be entitled to back pay but not reinstatement, a view that could determine Cook’s fate. The justices are wary of destabilizing financial markets by allowing rapid turnover at the central bank, and they will hear a separate set of arguments in January specifically addressing whether Cook can remain in her position while her legal challenge plays out.

As the court prepares to revisit a foundational precedent that has structured the federal government for nearly a century, the stakes extend far beyond the individuals involved. A ruling that dismantles or weakens Humphrey’s Executor would fundamentally reshape the presidency, placing far more power in the hands of whoever occupies the Oval Office and potentially transforming the relationship between the executive branch and the regulatory bodies that oversee some of the most critical aspects of American life.

With the conservative majority signaling their eagerness to confront the precedent, the outcome could mark one of the most consequential shifts in presidential authority in modern times.