Published: July 1, 2026 | Category: U.S. Supreme Court | Constitutional Law

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6–3 that statutory restrictions limiting the president’s authority to remove leaders of certain independent executive agencies are unconstitutional, marking one of the most significant administrative law decisions in decades.

The ruling, issued in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332), overturns the Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had allowed Congress to provide “for-cause” removal protections for members of some independent regulatory commissions.

America’s Supreme Court has dramatically enlarged the powers of the presidency—not just for Donald Trump, but for every president who follows him. We explain how https://t.co/3ulXRaIaed

Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images pic.twitter.com/tQlyvyTTWQ

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 30, 2026

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that officials exercising executive authority must remain accountable to the president under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitutional Question

The case arose after the Trump administration removed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in early 2025.

The dismissal notices stated that their continued service was “inconsistent with the administration’s priorities.”

Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, FTC commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms and historically could be removed before their terms expired only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Rebecca Slaughter challenged her removal, arguing that federal law required a valid statutory basis before a commissioner could be dismissed.

The dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where the justices were asked to determine whether Congress may limit the president’s removal authority over officials exercising executive power.

The Majority Opinion

The Court concluded that agencies exercising executive authority remain part of the Executive Branch and therefore fall under presidential supervision.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote:

“The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive.”

The opinion states that officials carrying out executive functions must remain accountable to the president, who in turn is accountable to voters.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court expressly overruled Humphrey’s Executor, ending a constitutional framework that had existed for more than 90 years.

The Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the Court’s other liberal justices, issued a dissent arguing that Congress intentionally designed independent commissions to operate with a degree of insulation from changing political administrations.

The dissent warned that removing those protections could increase turnover within regulatory agencies and affect long-term policy continuity across different presidential administrations.

A Separate Ruling on the Federal Reserve

In a separate decision involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the Court reached a different result.

A 5–4 majority concluded that the administration could not immediately remove Cook under the circumstances presented in that case.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the Court’s three liberal justices, finding that the Federal Reserve occupies a distinct statutory position and that any attempt to remove a governor must satisfy established procedural and legal requirements.

The decision does not permanently prevent the removal of Federal Reserve governors, but it indicates that such actions require a documented legal basis rather than policy disagreement alone.

Potential Effects on Federal Agencies

Legal analysts say the decision in Trump v. Slaughter could influence how future administrations manage independent regulatory agencies.

Possible implications include:

• Greater presidential oversight of agencies that exercise executive authority.
• Faster leadership changes following presidential transitions.
• Additional litigation over which federal offices remain protected by statutory removal provisions.
• Continued judicial review of the constitutional boundaries between Congress and the Executive Branch.

The ruling may also affect agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other independent commissions whose leadership structures have historically relied on removal protections established by Congress.

Why the Decision Matters

The Court’s decision represents a significant development in constitutional and administrative law.

By overturning a longstanding precedent, the ruling changes the legal framework governing presidential authority over many independent executive agencies while leaving separate questions regarding institutions such as the Federal Reserve to future litigation.

Legal scholars expect the decision to influence future debates over executive power, agency independence, and the separation of powers for years to come.

Sources: Supreme Court opinions in Trump v. Slaughter and the related Trump v. Cook decision; Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 41); U.S. Constitution, Article II.