By Elsie Kamsiyochi
The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a landmark decision that significantly expands presidential authority over independent federal agencies, ruling that President Donald Trump had the constitutional power to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter from office.
In a closely watched 6-3 ruling issued on Monday, the court overturned the nearly century-old Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision from 1935, a legal precedent that had long protected members of certain independent federal agencies from being dismissed by a president without cause. The ruling marks one of the most consequential shifts in the balance of power between the presidency and independent government agencies in decades.
The case stemmed from Trump’s March 2025 decision to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner serving on the FTC. Slaughter, who had been appointed during former President Joe Biden’s administration, argued that federal law only allowed a commissioner to be removed for specific reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct—not simply because of disagreements over policy.
Lower federal courts initially sided with Slaughter, pointing to the protections established by Congress more than a century ago and reinforced by the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling. However, the nation’s highest court reversed those decisions, concluding that the Constitution gives the president broader authority to remove executive branch officials.
The decision effectively invalidates the long-standing legal protections that had shielded FTC commissioners from dismissal based solely on political or policy disagreements. Legal experts say the ruling could reshape how independent agencies operate and redefine the relationship between the White House and regulatory bodies across the federal government.
President Trump celebrated the outcome shortly after the ruling was announced, describing it on social media as a “BIG WIN” for presidential authority. He argued that the Constitution grants presidents the power to remove executive branch officials and agency appointees, saying the decision restores authority that presidents have sought for nearly a century.
Trump also called the ruling one of the most significant decisions ever issued regarding presidential powers, saying it confirms that the executive branch should remain under the direct control of the nation’s elected president.
Despite the sweeping nature of the decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that its ruling should not be interpreted as weakening the independence of the Federal Reserve. The justices noted that the central bank occupies a unique constitutional and historical position, distinguishing it from agencies such as the FTC.
That distinction became especially important because, in a separate decision released the same day, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving the independence of the U.S. central bank.
The FTC decision is expected to have implications beyond the commission itself. Similar job protections exist for officials serving on more than two dozen independent agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Legal analysts believe the ruling could prompt future challenges involving those agencies and potentially reshape the structure of the federal government.
Supporters of the decision argue it restores accountability by ensuring that executive agencies remain answerable to the president, who is elected by the American people. Critics, however, warn that it could weaken the independence of regulators tasked with overseeing major industries, enforcing antitrust laws, protecting consumers, and regulating labor relations without political interference.
The court’s ruling also represents a major victory for advocates of the “unitary executive” theory, a constitutional interpretation that argues the president should have broad control over all officials exercising executive power. The Trump administration relied heavily on that theory in defending Slaughter’s removal.
For nearly 90 years, the Humphrey’s Executor decision had stood as a cornerstone of American administrative law, limiting presidential authority over certain independent agencies. By overturning that precedent, the Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the legal framework governing the executive branch, setting the stage for future debates over the scope of presidential power and the independence of federal regulators.
The ruling is expected to influence constitutional law, executive authority, and the operation of independent federal agencies for years to come, making it one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions of the current term.
Source Reuters
Original article
Comments