Supreme Court Poised to Hand Trump Victory, Expand Presidential Power Over Agencies
President Donald Trump stands on the brink of a significant Supreme Court victory that may alter the balance of power concerning independent regulatory agencies. Justices are hinting they might rule that the president can dismiss members of these agencies without cause, potentially overturning nearly a century of established legal precedent.
This case stems from Trump’s decision to fire Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter before her term ended. The dispute challenges the framework set by the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which restricts presidential power to remove officials from independent bodies only in cases of misconduct or malfeasance.
If the Court chooses to overturn or weaken this precedent, it could significantly shift oversight control from Congress directly to the presidency. According to a tweet related to the case, “President Trump is on the cusp of an apparent Supreme Court VICTORY with justices signaling they may allow him to fire a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission WITHOUT cause.”
Background of the Case
The firing of Slaughter in March came as Trump returned to the White House. He claimed her continued service was “inconsistent” with his administration’s objectives. Slaughter responded by suing the administration, arguing her removal violated the Federal Trade Commission Act’s protections against dismissal without cause, a safeguard that has existed since the law’s enactment in 1914.
Lower courts sided with Slaughter, but the Supreme Court surprised many by fast-tracking the administration’s appeal. Oral arguments took place recently in Washington, D.C., with a ruling anticipated by the end of June.
“An Outdated and Indefensible Outlier”
Trump’s legal team, led by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, contended that the FTC and similar agencies now possess far more authority than anyone envisioned nearly a century ago. Therefore, according to the defense, the president must have complete control over these appointments. Sauer described Humphrey’s Executor as an “indefensible outlier” and insisted that the president “must have authority to remove those who assist him in carrying out his duties.”
Chief Justice John Roberts supported this perspective, describing the earlier ruling as “a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.” The conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett, voiced doubts about keeping powerful regulatory bodies insulated from presidential scrutiny.
Justice Gorsuch contributed to the discussion by asserting, “Maybe it’s a recognition that Humphrey’s Executor was poorly reasoned.” He noted that the Constitution does not recognize a “fourth branch of government.”
The critical question the justices face involves whether Congress has the authority to shield these influential agencies—like the FTC that imposes fines and blocks mergers—from being dismissed by the elected leader of the executive branch.
Liberal Justices Raise Red Flags
The Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—cautioned against dismantling safeguards designed to protect public institutions from political purges.
Justice Kagan expressed concern about the potential for “massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power” in the hands of the president, warning that this could allow for lawmaking without proper oversight. Meanwhile, Justice Sotomayor fiercely defended the current structure, arguing, “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government… The idea that a government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.”
Justice Jackson raised alarms over the risk that repealing existing protections might enable presidents to replace experienced regulators with political allies. She stated bluntly, “Having a president come in and fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists… is not in the best interest of the citizens.”
Wide-Ranging Implications
A ruling in Trump’s favor could have significant repercussions. Several similar cases are already in litigation, involving other Democratic appointees, such as National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter.
Beyond this, the decision could reshape over two dozen federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These organizations play vital roles in regulating financial markets, labor disputes, product recalls, and protecting consumers from fraud.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and legal groups like the Cato Institute back Trump’s stance, arguing that independent agencies often lack accountability and impose excessive regulations. Conversely, organizations such as the AFL-CIO, Public Citizen, and 22 Democratic state attorneys general caution that weakening oversight may result in “real world chaos and disruption.”
The End of Independent Agencies?
The crux of this legal battle lies in whether these expansive regulatory agencies function solely as arms of the executive branch or retain enough independence to serve public interests divorced from shifting political agendas.
This debate reflects a long-discussed principle in American governance known as the “unitary executive theory.” Advocates of this theory argue that the president should hold full sway over the executive branch under Article II of the Constitution, including personnel decisions. Supporters of Trump assert that without the ability to control agency personnel, the president’s authority becomes meaningless.
Justice Kavanaugh pointed out during oral arguments that allowing agency heads to operate independently from presidential oversight leads to a bureaucratic system “not accountable to the people,” yet still capable of exerting vast power over personal liberties and major industries.
Legal Precedent Under Threat
The Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor has historically served as a bulwark against direct presidential control over independent agencies. This precedent maintains that FTC commissioners perform both legislative and judicial roles and, therefore, should not be easily removed by the president. It restricts presidents to dismissal for causes such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
While conservative justices question whether the FTC still meets the criteria for a nonpartisan agency, liberal justices emphasize that revoking this precedent would hinder future administrations’ capabilities to govern within established institutional boundaries.
Justice Sotomayor noted that the original law enabled government functions to persist across administration changes without experiencing an entire turnover. “Stability has a cost, but so does chaos,” she remarked, highlighting a critical aspect of governance.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision—expected by the close of June—will likely redefine executive authority over independent federal agencies. A ruling in favor of Trump would empower future presidents to reshape regulatory bodies and remove officials who oppose their agendas, regardless of whether those officials have fixed terms.
This outcome could signify a significant shift in how authority is distributed among the presidency, Congress, and the agencies that are charged with serving the public without political influence. The implications of this case are far-reaching, affecting not just a single commissioner or agency but potentially redefining the future role of the presidency within the administrative landscape.
"*" indicates required fields
