The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a president can remove a commissioner from an independent agency without cause, a fight sparked by President Donald Trump’s removal of FTC member Rebecca Slaughter. The outcome could reshape how much power the White House holds over regulatory boards and test the future of the 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor.
This case, Trump v. Slaughter, grew out of an early, unilateral ouster of a commissioner whose term ran until 2029 and who immediately sued to reclaim her seat. Courts below disagreed, producing a patchwork of rulings and a temporary stay while the Supreme Court sorts the constitutional issues. The dispute hinges on whether protections Congress built into the Federal Trade Commission Act are still valid and enforceable against a sitting president.
The statute at the heart of the fight bars removal of FTC members except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That language has stood for a century as a legislative check on executive reach, and it is central to the argument that independent commissions must remain insulated from routine political firing. Supporters of presidential control argue that modern agencies exercise too much core executive power to be cut off from accountability.
Those pressing for a stronger presidency say Humphrey’s Executor has outlived its usefulness because agencies now do things the 1935 court could not have imagined. The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, asked the court to sweep aside Humphrey’s in favor of a clearer chain of command. “The notion that some agencies that exercise executive power can be sequestered from presidential control seriously offends the Constitution’s structure and the liberties that the separation of powers protects,” he wrote, making the case that the president must be able to direct those who execute the laws.
Lower courts have been split, with a federal judge ordering Slaughter reinstated before the Supreme Court placed that order on hold while it considers the bigger constitutional question. Conservative justices signaled willingness to weigh whether removal protections violate the separation of powers and whether Humphrey’s should be overruled. Three liberal justices dissented from the decision to take the case, underscoring how sharply the court is divided.
On the practical side, the stakes are huge because the decision won’t just affect the FTC. A ruling that endorses presidential removal authority could let future administrations replace members at agencies like the NLRB and the SEC with appointees who reflect the president’s priorities. Opponents warn that would erase longstanding safeguards designed to keep regulators independent and steady across political cycles.
This fight is one of several this term testing the so-called unitary executive theory, and it arrives amid a flurry of litigation from other agency members fired by the current administration. Cases involving NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, MSPB member Cathy Harris, and a separate matter involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook will all be shaped by how the justices treat the central question in Trump v. Slaughter. The high court’s ruling will set a blueprint for whether independent agencies remain buffer zones or fall under closer White House control.
Republican legal voices pressing for overhaul argue the president must be able to remove subordinates who exercise significant executive authority, otherwise the elected leader cannot be held accountable for what the government does in practice. That perspective frames the case as a necessary rebalancing of power back toward voters’ chosen executive. Critics see a different threat: unchecked firing powers that could turn rulemaking bodies into political tools.
A final decision is expected by the end of June, and it will matter for decades. If the court upholds broad removal powers, the presidency gains a stronger hand in running federal agencies; if it preserves Humphrey’s protections, independent commissions keep a form of statutory insulation from at-will dismissal. Either way, the outcome will be a defining moment for separation of powers and how America governs its modern administrative state.
Graduate Student, wife, engaged political and legal writer.