The U.S. Supreme Court issued two closely watched decisions this week that could significantly influence the relationship between the White House and independent federal agencies.

In one ruling, the Court expanded presidential authority over leadership at certain independent regulatory agencies by revisiting decades of precedent surrounding removal protections. In a separate decision involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, however, the Court declined to allow an immediate removal, emphasizing procedural safeguards and the distinct role Congress assigned to the nation’s central bank.

Taken together, the decisions illustrate how the Court is drawing different constitutional boundaries for executive authority depending on the institution involved. While many regulatory commissions may now face greater presidential oversight, the Federal Reserve continues to receive special consideration because of its unique responsibility for monetary policy and financial stability.

Reexamining Independent Agency Leadership

The first decision centered on the dismissal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.

The dispute raised a longstanding constitutional question: To what extent may Congress limit a president’s authority to remove officials who lead independent regulatory agencies?

For decades, the answer largely rested on the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which permitted Congress to provide certain removal protections for members of multi-member independent commissions.

In its latest opinion, however, the Court concluded that the FTC exercises executive authority in a manner that places its leadership under greater presidential control. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that the Commission performs executive functions that ultimately remain subject to Article II of the Constitution.