SCOTUS expands Trump powers over independent govt agencies while preserving Fed Reserve’s independence

The 6-3 ruling is expected to reshape the balance of power between the White House and independent federal agencies. However, the court made it clear that the decision should not affect the independence of the Federal Reserve.

Supreme Court overturns 91-year-old precedent

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot stop a president from removing FTC commissioners over policy differences.

The decision overturned the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ruling, which had allowed Congress to protect leaders of independent agencies from being fired without cause.

The case centered on Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner appointed by former President Joe Biden. Trump fired Slaughter in March 2025 over policy disagreements, even though her term was supposed to continue until 2029.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the court’s conservative majority, said Trump’s decision to remove Slaughter “is not a close case.”

“The FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote. “In its present form, the FTC enforces and administers some 80 statutes, which cover almost every facet of our Nation’s economy. The tasks it undertakes are ‘the very essence of execution of the law,’ precisely the president’s constitutional role.”

Importance of the case

A law passed in 1914 allowed presidents to remove FTC commissioners only for reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct—not because they disagreed with their policies.

Similar protections also apply to officials at more than two dozen other independent agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Supreme Court did not clearly say whether those agencies will also lose their protections, leaving that question open.

Liberal justices warn of impact

The court’s three liberal justices strongly disagreed with the ruling. They said the decision gives presidents far more control over independent agencies than ever before.

The dissent said the ruling had given the president “a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the president’s hands.”

Trump calls it a ‘BIG WIN’

Trump celebrated the decision on social media, calling it a “BIG WIN.” He said the ruling was “confirming Presidential Power in our Country to remove Executive Branch Officers and Agency Appointees, or Representatives, under Article II,” the constitutional provision laying out presidential powers.

“This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s,” Trump wrote, calling the decision “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.”

Rebecca Slaughter reacts

Speaking on CNBC, Slaughter said she was disappointed with the ruling. “I think why it really matters is exactly as President Trump said, it is unprecedented,” Slaughter said. “And it hands a massive amount of power away from Congress and to the president to shape economic decision making in a way that will reward the rich and powerful and at the expense of ordinary Americans.”

She also said she was “shocked when the court overturns a unanimous 91-year-old precedent that has been used to shape so much of our government institutions.”

Democratic senators and antimonopoly groups also expressed concern, saying Trump’s move could weaken the FTC’s oversight of large corporations.

How the legal battle reached the Supreme Court

A federal judge in Washington blocked Trump’s firing of Slaughter in July 2025, saying the law protecting FTC commissioners was constitutional. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit later upheld that decision in a 2-1 ruling.

However, in September, the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s decision to remove Slaughter to take effect while agreeing to hear the case. The court’s three liberal justices dissented from that order.

Both lower courts had relied on the Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which had protected FTC commissioners from being removed without cause.

What was the Humphrey’s Executor ruling?

The 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision came after President Franklin Roosevelt tried to fire an FTC commissioner because of policy differences. At the time, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could protect FTC commissioners because the agency carried out duties that were partly legislative and judicial, not purely executive.

The Trump administration argued that today’s FTC exercises much greater executive power than it did in 1935, making that old precedent no longer applicable.

The constitutional debate

The Trump administration based its arguments on the “unitary executive” theory. This legal theory says the president should have complete control over the executive branch, including the authority to remove leaders of independent agencies even if Congress has provided job protections. The US Constitution divides power among the executive, legislative and judicial branches through a system of checks and balances.

Although the Supreme Court had narrowed the scope of the Humphrey’s Executor ruling in recent years, it had never fully overturned it until now. In a 2020 decision, the court had said presidents generally have the authority to remove agency heads but recognised a limited exception for certain multi-member expert agencies.

Federal Reserve remains protected

While expanding presidential power over the FTC, the Supreme Court made it clear that Monday’s ruling should not be interpreted as applying to the Federal Reserve. The court described the US central bank as having a unique historical status.In another major ruling on the same day, the Supreme Court also refused to let Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving the central bank’s independence.

The Slaughter case is the latest example of the Supreme Court overturning one of its own landmark decisions. In 2022, the court overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had recognised a constitutional right to abortion. In 2024, it also overturned a 1984 precedent that had required courts to defer to government agencies when interpreting laws they administer.