The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a landmark constitutional ruling that significantly strengthens presidential authority over independent federal agencies, holding that President Donald Trump was within his powers to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter despite statutory protections intended to shield commissioners from political dismissal.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down long-standing job protections that had prevented presidents from removing FTC commissioners except for specific reasons such as misconduct or neglect of duty. The ruling overturns the Court’s historic 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a precedent that for more than nine decades had served as the legal foundation for the independence of several federal regulatory bodies.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the FTC, as it exists today, performs core executive functions that fall squarely within the President’s constitutional responsibility to enforce federal law. Because of that, officials exercising executive authority must remain answerable to the President and can be removed at his discretion.
“The FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers,” the majority held, emphasizing that the commission now administers and enforces dozens of federal statutes affecting virtually every sector of the American economy. According to the Court, these responsibilities represent executive power that cannot be insulated from presidential oversight.
The dispute stemmed from Trump’s decision to dismiss Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March 2025 after citing policy disagreements. Slaughter, appointed during former President Joe Biden’s administration, was serving a term scheduled to continue until 2029. A federal law enacted in 1914 had limited presidential removal of FTC commissioners to cases involving inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance, rather than ideological differences.
Lower federal courts had initially ruled in Slaughter’s favor, finding that the statutory protections remained constitutional under the Humphrey’s Executor precedent. However, the Supreme Court had previously allowed Trump’s dismissal to take effect while agreeing to hear the constitutional challenge, setting the stage for Monday’s far-reaching decision.
Although the judgment directly concerns the FTC, its implications could extend well beyond the agency. Similar tenure protections exist for officials serving on numerous independent federal bodies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The majority stopped short of deciding whether those agencies would also lose their independence, leaving future litigation likely.
The Court, however, drew a distinction when it came to the Federal Reserve. The justices indicated that the ruling should not be interpreted as weakening the central bank’s independence, describing the institution as possessing a unique constitutional and historical status. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the Court declined to allow Trump to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
The decision prompted a forceful dissent from the Court’s three liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the ruling fundamentally alters the balance of power between Congress and the presidency.
According to the dissent, independent commissions that have traditionally operated outside direct presidential control may now effectively become executive agencies, concentrating substantial authority in the White House. The dissenters argued that the decision grants the President powers that extend beyond what the nation’s founders envisioned when crafting the constitutional system of checks and balances.
Trump celebrated the judgment, describing it as a major affirmation of presidential authority under Article II of the Constitution. He said the ruling resolved a constitutional issue that presidents had contested for decades and called it one of the most significant decisions ever issued concerning executive power.
Slaughter criticized the outcome, expressing disappointment that the Court had discarded a unanimous precedent that had shaped the structure of the federal government for more than 90 years. She argued that the decision transfers substantial influence from Congress to the President over economic regulation and policymaking.
The ruling also marks another significant instance of the Supreme Court overturning one of its own longstanding constitutional precedents. In recent years, the Court has repeatedly revisited earlier landmark decisions, reshaping major areas of constitutional law while expanding executive authority in several contexts.
Legal observers now expect fresh constitutional challenges involving other independent agencies whose leadership has traditionally been protected from political removal. Those cases are likely to determine how far Monday’s decision reaches and whether the architecture of America’s independent regulatory system is poised for a broader transformation.
