Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey's Executor, Expanding Presidential Control Over Independent Agencies
In a monumental expansion of executive power, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 29, 2026, in Trump v. Slaughter, holding that the statutory for-cause removal protections for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners violate the Constitution. The landmark decision explicitly overrules the 91-year-old precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which had long allowed Congress to shield independent regulatory agencies from direct presidential control.
The case originated from President Trump's March 2025 at-will firing of Democratic FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, whose continued service was deemed inconsistent with the administration's policy priorities.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the 6-3 majority, declared that the President's executive authority under Article II requires direct control over principal officers:
"To remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the President... independent agencies are not ‘independent’ in the sense that they are free of the President and thus responsive ‘only to the people of the United States.’"
This ruling effectively subjects dozens of independent regulatory commissions (such as the SEC, NLRB, and FERC) to direct, at-will presidential removal power, allowing administrations to rapidly realign agency leadership and policy priorities.
The Federal Reserve Exception: Trump v. Cook
In a closely watched companion case decided on the same day, Trump v. Cook, the Court voted 5-4 to carve out the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from the broad rule1 established in Slaughter. The case arose after President Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025.
Chief Justice Roberts, again writing for the majority, emphasized the unique statutory and historical status of the nation's central bank:
The Federal Reserve occupies a "distinct historical tradition of central bank independence" and any change to its independence "must come from Congress, not the courts."
The Court clarified that while the President retains the authority to remove a Federal Reserve Governor "for cause," this decision is subject to judicial review to ensure the asserted rationale meets the high statutory threshold2:
"Whether a Governor should be 'removed for cause' is a decision only the President can make (short of impeachment), but that does not mean that he may make that decision for any reason, or no reason."
Dissent Warns of "Reshaping" Executive Government
In her dissent in Slaughter, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the majority's decision represents a radical departure from stare decisis and threatens the structural integrity of the modern administrative state:
The majority's decision will "reshape our Government" by subjecting dozens of independent commissions to direct presidential control.
The ruling has also raised immediate international concerns, particularly regarding the EU-US Data Privacy Framework, which relies heavily on the FTC's status as an independent, non-political oversight body.
-
An instance of Administrative independence can be stripped away, but monetary and constitutional baselines remain protected. — The Supreme Court upheld at-will removal power over the Federal Trade Commission while drawing a firm protective boundary around the Federal Reserve's monetary independence. ↩︎
-
An instance of Administrative independence can be stripped away, but monetary and constitutional baselines remain protected. — The dual decisions expanded presidential firing power over general regulatory boards while maintaining strict legal limits to protect the Federal Reserve's monetary independence. ↩︎