The Supreme Court just ruled that presidents can fire federal agency heads at any time — and in doing so, erased a 91-year-old legal shield that let unelected regulators operate beyond the President’s control.
Story Highlights
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that the President can fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners at will, without needing a specific cause.
- The ruling overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 precedent that had protected independent agency heads from removal for 91 years.
- Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that agency officials who exercise executive power must answer to the President — or the President cannot answer to the American people.
- The decision likely affects other independent agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Supreme Court Hands Trump a Major Constitutional Win
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that President Trump acted lawfully in firing two Democrat Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners — Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya — in early 2025.
Trump removed them over policy disagreements, not the specific legal grounds the FTC Act had required. The Court said those removal protections are unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
Roberts wrote plainly: “What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms — the President may remove his subordinates at will.” The Court found that FTC commissioners exercise executive power every day — by filing civil lawsuits, writing rules, and deciding cases.
Because that power belongs to the executive branch, the President must be able to control it. Congress cannot legally block him from doing so.
A 91-Year Legal Fiction Gets Erased
The ruling directly overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court case that had shielded independent agency leaders from removal without cause.
That old ruling called the FTC’s work “quasi-judicial” and “quasi-legislative” — meaning it acted more like a court or Congress than the executive branch. The new majority called that framing a legal fiction that no longer matches what the FTC actually does today.
6 conservative Supreme Court Justices have increased Trump's power over independent federal agencies.
This ruling allows Trump to fire Democratic appointee and former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. pic.twitter.com/CDu1FKfuEg
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 29, 2026
The Court noted that prior rulings had already chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor for years. The 2020 decision in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had already stripped single-director agencies of removal protections.
Monday’s ruling finishes the job for multi-member bodies like the FTC. Roberts wrote: “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, the Court overrules it.”
What This Means for Accountability in Government
The ruling’s core message is about accountability. Roberts wrote that subordinates who exercise the President’s power must be removable by him — otherwise, the President cannot be held responsible by voters for what those officials do.
For conservatives who have long argued that unelected bureaucrats operate without real oversight, this ruling delivers exactly the constitutional correction they wanted.
The decision does not strip any agency of its legal authority. The FTC can still regulate, investigate, and enforce the law. The ruling simply moves accountability for those actions back to the President, where the Constitution places it. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in a concurrence that the ruling does not eliminate agency powers — it relocates them under the President’s supervision.
Dissent, Exceptions, and What Comes Next
The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented sharply. Sotomayor called the decision “grievously wrong” and warned it gives the President “far greater power than ever before.”
The dissent argued that the Constitution’s text and history support Congress’s right to protect independent agency heads from removal. That view did not carry the day.
The ruling does carve out one notable exception. In a companion case, Trump v. Cook, the Court signaled that Federal Reserve Board members may still hold some protection — recognizing what it called “a special arrangement sanctioned by history” for central banking.
Tax Court and Court of Federal Claims judges were also left untouched. The ruling’s full reach across other agencies, such as the EEOC and NLRB, will likely be tested in court soon.
Sources:
wiley.law, abcnews.com, appellate.net, npr.org, yalejreg.com, sidley.com
