Supreme Court expands removal power

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 29 gave presidents broader power to fire leaders of independent federal agencies, overruling a 91-year-old precedent that had limited removal of Federal Trade Commission commissioners. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 majority said the Constitution bars Congress from restricting the president’s authority to remove FTC members, rejecting the framework set out in Humphrey’s Executor in 1935. The ruling followed an emergency order in 2025 that had already let President Donald Trump remove officials at the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board while litigation continued. ### Which case changed the rule? Trump v. Slaughter arose from President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933 firing of FTC Commissioner William Humphrey, the dispute that produced Humphrey’s Executor. In its June 29 opinion, the current court said that precedent could not be squared with the Constitution’s vesting of executive power in the president and formally overruled it. The Supreme Court’s syllabus said the FTC “has accumulated vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory powers,” and the majority concluded that such officials must remain subject to presidential control. (supremecourt.gov) Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the three liberal justices in dissent, said the decision discarded a longstanding limit on presidential authority over agencies Congress designed to operate with some independence. ### Which agencies are now more exposed? The Federal Trade Commission is the agency directly at issue, but the decision reaches far beyond it because many multimember commissions were built on similar removal protections. The Hill reported that analysts expect greater exposure for agencies that affect consumers directly, including regulators in finance, communications and other sectors where rules can change with administrations. (supremecourt.gov) The New York Times reported that businesses that deal regularly with federal regulators now expect more policy volatility because enforcement priorities may change faster when presidents can replace commissioners more easily. That concern extends to agencies long treated as buffers between White House politics and day-to-day regulation. ### Did the court leave any exception in place? (thehill.com) A separate Supreme Court order in Trump v. Wilcox in May 2025 suggested the Federal Reserve would be treated differently from other agencies. In that order, the justices said the Federal Reserve is “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity,” language the court highlighted while allowing Trump to remove NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris pending appeal. (nytimes.com) CNBC reported after the June 29 rulings that the court declined to let Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, leaving intact a distinction between the Fed and most other independent bodies. That carveout limited the immediate reach of the court’s broader removal-power ruling. ### Why are lawyers focused on Congress’s power? Humphrey’s Executor had long stood for the idea that Congress could create agencies insulated from direct presidential firing, at least in some circumstances. (supremecourt.gov) The Hill wrote that the new ruling tests Congress’s ability to structure limits around the presidency, especially in agencies designed to combine rulemaking, adjudication and enforcement. (cnbc.com) OSV News, reviewing the term’s major decisions, said the court ended the term by rejecting some Trump positions in other cases while still enlarging presidential power in disputes over agency control. That combination has made the removal ruling one of the term’s clearest statements about the balance between Congress and the executive branch. (thehill.com) ### What happens next in practice? June 29 did not settle every dispute over every firing, because lower courts still must apply the ruling to pending cases involving particular officials and agencies. Reuters, in a June 30 factbox, said the FTC decision would affect litigation tied to other Trump removals across the federal government. (osvnews.com) The Supreme Court is not scheduled to hear new arguments until its next term, but challenges involving agency firings, reinstatement requests and statutory protections are expected to keep moving in lower courts in Washington. Named officials in those fights have included Gwynne Wilcox, Cathy Harris and FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. (supremecourt.gov) (msn.com)