Supreme Court Expands Trump's Power to Fire Agency Heads
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump may fire members of independent federal agencies without cause, overturning the 91-year-old precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States in a sweeping expansion of presidential power.
In a separate 5-4 decision issued the same day, the justices carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, allowing Fed Governor Lisa Cook to keep her job while she challenges her own attempted removal in court.
Both opinions were authored by Chief Justice John Roberts. The firing-power case arose from Trump's March 2025 removal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whom the White House told that her continued service was "inconsistent with [the] Administration's priorities," citing none of the grounds Congress set for removal.
The 1914 law creating the FTC permits removal of commissioners only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." A federal district judge ordered Slaughter reinstated, citing the 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reached a similar conclusion before the administration appealed to the Supreme Court.
Roberts: agency officials are 'subordinates'
Writing for the majority, Roberts held that the commission's for-cause protection violates the constitutional separation of powers. "The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive," he wrote, as CNBC reported.
Roberts noted the FTC now "enforces and administers some 80 statutes" covering nearly every facet of the economy, and that the agency investigates, adjudicates and files civil suits on behalf of the United States. Those functions, he reasoned, place commissioners under the president's control.
"Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people," Roberts wrote, in a passage quoted by NPR.
The majority comprised all six conservative justices. In a concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that "independent agencies are not so independent after all," while urging the court to go further in restoring powers to Congress and the courts.
Sotomayor: ruling 'reshapes our Government'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in a 49-page opinion, calling the decision "grievously wrong." She warned that "the majority reshapes our Government."
"The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted," Sotomayor wrote, arguing that dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies.
Slaughter, in an interview on CNBC, said she was "disappointed in the ruling" and predicted FTC policy would become more political. The decision effectively ends Congress's requirement that no more than three of the five FTC commissioners come from one party; Trump fired both Democratic commissioners last year, leaving only Republicans.
Federal Reserve spared, for now
In the companion case, the court ruled 5-4 — with the three liberals joining Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — that Cook may remain on the Federal Reserve Board while she contests her firing in a federal district court.
Trump moved to remove Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she denies. Roberts wrote that accepting the administration's arguments would "transform the Federal Reserve's for-cause protection into at-will employment," a step "out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation's tradition of central banking protected from political interference."
Roberts stressed that the FTC ruling "should not be read" as affecting the structure of the Federal Reserve, describing the central bank as following a distinct historical tradition tied to the First and Second Banks of the United States. The court did not decide whether Trump may ultimately fire Cook, saying she is "entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond" first.
Trump celebrated the FTC decision in a Truth Social post as a "BIG WIN," writing that "90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED." On Cook, he signaled he would press on, vowing to "take appropriate action immediately."
The ruling casts doubt on removal protections at other multi-member bodies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, where Trump has also fired Democratic members. The decision follows a term in which the court has repeatedly weighed Trump's use of executive power, from its order letting the administration end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians to a ruling upholding the SEC's power to recoup illegal gains.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide about presidential firing power?
By a 6-3 vote, the court ruled that the president may remove members of independent federal agencies such as the FTC without cause, striking down a for-cause removal protection as a violation of the separation of powers.
What is Humphrey's Executor and why does the ruling matter?
Humphrey's Executor v. United States was a 1935 decision that upheld limits on a president's ability to fire FTC commissioners. The 2026 ruling overturns that 91-year-old precedent, effectively turning many agency commissioners into at-will employees who serve at the president's pleasure.
Why was the Federal Reserve treated differently?
In a separate 5-4 decision, the court allowed Fed Governor Lisa Cook to keep her job pending litigation. Roberts wrote that the Federal Reserve follows a distinct historical tradition of central banking insulated from political interference, and that the FTC ruling should not be read to affect the Fed's structure.
Which other agencies could be affected?
The reasoning extends to other multi-member independent agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, where the president has also removed members.
Sources
Reporting compiled from court records and the cited source outlets.