Kkiefuik / Wikimedia Commons
Why It Matters
Two Supreme Court rulings handed down Monday reshaped the balance of power between the executive branch and federal regulatory agencies — a debate that directly affects how independent watchdog bodies operate and who ultimately controls them. The decisions touch every American who interacts with federally regulated industries, from banking to consumer protection.
What Happened
The Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings Monday addressing President Trump’s authority to remove leaders of independent federal agencies. In the more consequential case, the Court ruled 6-3 that Trump had the power to fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, effectively dismantling a 90-year-old legal precedent that had shielded agency heads from at-will presidential removal.
In a separate ruling, however, the Court blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — at least for now — drawing a line between traditional regulatory agencies and the central bank’s unique economic role.
Chief Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion in the Slaughter case. The Court has issued a series of significant rulings this term, including on gun rights and executive authority, and Monday’s decisions continue that pattern of reasserting constitutional boundaries around the presidency.
The Precedent That Fell
The ruling overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 case that had long protected independent agency commissioners from being dismissed without cause. That precedent stemmed from the 1933 firing of FTC Commissioner William Humphrey — appointed by President Herbert Hoover — by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Supreme Court at the time unanimously ruled Roosevelt’s dismissal improper.
For nine decades, that ruling stood as a legal firewall protecting roughly two dozen independent agencies from direct presidential control. Monday’s majority swept that protection away for most agencies, declaring that executive branch subordinates must answer to the president in order for democratic accountability to function.
Roberts wrote in the majority opinion: “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.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench — a signal of deep disagreement — joined by the Court’s two other liberal justices in the 6-3 split along ideological lines.
The Federal Reserve Carveout
The Court’s protection of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook represented the one area where Trump’s removal authority did not prevail — at least in this ruling. Cook had faced allegations of mortgage fraud, with claims that she listed two different homes as her primary residence in 2021. Trump announced her firing on social media last year.
The justices treated the Federal Reserve as a distinct institution from conventional regulatory agencies, preserving its insulation from direct presidential removal for now. The decision leaves open the possibility of future challenges.
Slaughter, speaking publicly after the ruling, suggested the Court had drawn an unusual distinction. She argued that Wall Street interests had received special protection while agencies focused on consumer protection did not.
By the Numbers
- 6-3 — vote in the Slaughter case, split along conservative-liberal lines
- 1914 — year the FTC was created by Congress
- 1935 — year the Humphrey’s Executor precedent was established
- ~24 — approximate number of independent agencies previously shielded from presidential removal under Humphrey’s Executor
- $5 million — damages amount in the E. Jean Carroll case; the Court separately declined to hear Trump’s appeal of that verdict
Zoom Out
The ruling fits into a broader trend of the current Court reasserting executive authority and reexamining long-settled administrative law precedents. Federal courts have also been weighing executive power in immigration enforcement, and Monday’s decisions signal continued deference to the presidency on questions of agency control.
For conservatives who have long argued that sprawling unelected bureaucracies operate outside meaningful democratic accountability, the ruling represents a significant structural correction. For progressives, it raises alarms about the independence of consumer and regulatory watchdogs from political pressure.
What’s Next
With Humphrey’s Executor overruled, legal challenges involving the other roughly two dozen affected independent agencies are likely to follow. The Federal Reserve’s status remains legally unsettled, and further litigation over Cook’s firing is expected. Congress may also face pressure to revisit the statutory frameworks governing agency independence in light of Monday’s rulings.
About the Author
