Supreme Court to Challenge Longstanding Constraints on Presidential Power Over Federal Agencies
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear pivotal arguments that could dramatically reshape presidential authority by allowing greater control over independent federal agencies, challenging a precedent that has limited such power for nearly 90 years.
On December 8, 2025, the Court will consider the case Trump v. Slaughter, which centers on whether the president can remove appointed officials from independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at will, without cause. Currently, these commissioners enjoy removal protections aimed at insulating them from political influence, based on the 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which affirmed the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial nature of these agencies.
The case involves Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a former FTC commissioner who received a termination email alongside a Democratic colleague earlier this year. While one related claim was dismissed, Slaughter’s challenge remains, prompting the Court to address two key issues: whether the statutory removal protections violate the separation of powers, and whether such protections should be overruled.
If the Court rules against the existing protections, it could mark a significant expansion of presidential power over regulatory agencies, many of which have been key centers of federal authority and oversight for decades.
Background: The Humphrey’s Executor Precedent and Independent Agencies
The 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling established that Congress could prevent the president from removing heads of independent regulatory commissions without cause, distinguishing them from purely executive officials. These agencies wield significant influence across sectors like labor relations, consumer protection, and financial regulation, balancing partisan interests through staggered terms and multi-member boards.
However, recent conservative legal thought, particularly the unitary executive theory championed by former President Donald Trump and others, argues that the Constitution endows the president with full removal power over executive branch officials. This would allow the president to exert more direct control and ensure that agency leadership aligns with his agenda.
Recent Developments and Broader Impact
Chief Justice John Roberts has led the Court’s conservative majority toward increasing presidential authority. In earlier cases — including a 2020 ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a 2024 immunity ruling concerning presidential powers — the Court has emphasized broad removal powers as central to presidential control of the executive branch.
The current case specifically addresses the FTC, an agency integral to antitrust and consumer protection, where commissioners have traditionally served staggered terms to maintain stability. The Court’s decision could affect other agencies with similar independent status, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
The ruling may also differentiate between multi-member independent agencies and single-director agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where leadership is more directly tied to the president’s policies and can be more rapidly changed.
Implications for Federal Governance and Bureaucracy
A decision affirming unfettered presidential removal power could accelerate efforts by the executive branch to reshape the federal bureaucracy, potentially diminishing the independence of agencies designed to regulate sectors without partisan influence. While some legal experts caution that a change might not cause immediate widespread firings, it would send a strong signal that the Court supports a more centralized presidential control over regulatory functions.
This shift aligns with broader political goals seen in the Trump administration and aligned conservative legal movements, who have viewed independent agencies as impediments to direct presidential governance.
Looking Ahead
The arguments set for December 8 will be closely watched by policymakers, industry stakeholders, and legal analysts, as the case could redefine the balance of power between Congress, the executive branch, and independent agencies for years to come. The potential overruling of Humphrey’s Executor would represent one of the most significant recalibrations of the administrative state in nearly a century.