The Supreme Court just handed President Trump the power to fire federal agency heads at will, wiping out a 91-year-old legal shield that let unelected bureaucrats operate beyond the reach of the White House.
Story Highlights
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that Congress cannot protect Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners from being fired by the president.
- Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president must be able to remove subordinates who exercise executive power, or the Constitution’s separation of powers is violated.
- The ruling overturns Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 precedent that had shielded so-called independent agency heads for nine decades.
- The decision could affect other powerful agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Trump Fires FTC Commissioners, Court Says He Was Right
The case started when President Trump fired two Democrat Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners — Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya — in early 2025. He cited policy disagreements, not the narrow legal grounds required by the FTC’s rules.
Both commissioners sued, arguing the law protected them from removal without cause. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Trump acted within his constitutional authority.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, stating plainly: “The President may remove his subordinates at will.” The Court found that FTC commissioners “unquestionably exercise executive power” — they file civil suits, issue regulations, and decide enforcement cases.
Because they wield that kind of power, Roberts wrote, they must answer to the president. Otherwise, the president cannot be held accountable to the American people for how the government is run.
A 91-Year-Old Legal Fiction Gets Overturned
The ruling formally overturns Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 case that first allowed Congress to block presidents from firing certain agency heads. The Court called that precedent’s view of the FTC “highly circumscribed and almost fictional.”
For decades, the FTC has grown far beyond what the 1935 Court described. It now runs major enforcement actions, writes sweeping rules, and operates much like a traditional executive agency.
6 conservative Supreme Court Justices have increased Trump's power over independent federal agencies.
This ruling allows Trump to fire Democratic appointee and former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. pic.twitter.com/CDu1FKfuEg
— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) June 29, 2026
The 1935 ruling had labeled FTC work as “quasi-judicial” and “quasi-legislative” — meaning it resembled court and lawmaking functions rather than executive ones. The Roberts Court rejected those labels as outdated.
The majority said the FTC’s real-world duties today are executive in nature, and the president must control the officers who exercise executive power. The Court said that this is what Article II of the Constitution demands.
What the Ruling Does — and Doesn’t — Change
The decision does not strip any agency of its legal authority. The FTC, EEOC, NLRB, and similar agencies keep all their powers to regulate and enforce the law. What changes is who controls the people running those agencies.
Commissioners at agencies that exercise executive power now serve at the president’s pleasure, not behind a legal wall Congress built to insulate them. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted in a concurrence that the ruling relocates those powers to the president, not eliminates them.
One notable exception: the Federal Reserve. A companion case, Trump v. Cook, carved out a special protection for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, recognizing central banking as a historically unique arrangement.
Three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented sharply. Sotomayor called the ruling “grievously wrong” and warned it gives the president “far greater power than ever before.”
But the majority held firm: if a president cannot remove those who carry out his duties, the voters have no real way to hold him accountable for how government works. That is a basic principle of self-governance — and the Court just made it the law of the land.
Sources:
wiley.law, yalejreg.com, sidley.com
