🇺🇸 Supreme Court Signals Support for Trump in Case That Could Reshape Presidential Power Over U.S. Agencies
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday appeared ready to back President Donald Trump’s position that the White House should have sweeping authority to fire members of independent federal agencies — a move that could dramatically expand executive power for the first time in nearly a century.
During oral arguments, the Court’s conservative majority, including pivotal swing justice Amy Coney Barrett, showed clear sympathy toward the administration’s claim that Trump acted lawfully when he removed Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in March before her term expired.
The Justice Department is appealing a lower-court ruling that found the president exceeded his authority, but Monday’s session indicated the Supreme Court may be prepared to overturn a cornerstone precedent that has governed presidential limits since the 1930s.
A Direct Challenge to a New Deal Foundation
At the center of the case is Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that has protected leaders of independent agencies — including the FTC — from being fired for political reasons.
Former Justice Department lawyer John Yoo described the case as “one of the most important questions over the last century on the workings of the federal government,” warning that the future of agency independence hangs in the balance.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration, attacked the 90-year-old precedent as outdated, calling independent agencies “a headless fourth branch” unaccountable to voters. He urged the court to scrap Humphrey’s Executor entirely, claiming it has become a “decaying husk” incompatible with modern governance.
Chief Justice John Roberts also questioned whether the 1935 framework still applies, noting that the FTC of today holds far more executive power than the agency the Supreme Court reviewed nearly a century ago.
Liberal Justices Warn of Unchecked Presidential Control
The Court’s three liberal justices issued stark warnings about the consequences of giving presidents the ability to fire experts and regulators at will.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cautioned that dismantling agency independence would “destroy the structure of government” envisioned by Congress.
Justice Elena Kagan said the administration’s argument would result in a president with “massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power,” concentrating authority in ways that undermine real-world governance.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added that replacing professional economists, scientists, and analysts with political loyalists “is not in the best interest of the American people.”
Ripple Effects Across Government
A 1914 law allows presidents to remove FTC commissioners only for cause — such as neglect or malfeasance, not for policy disagreements. Similar protections apply to more than two dozen independent agencies, including:
- The Federal Reserve
- National Labor Relations Board
- Merit Systems Protection Board
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, notably, pressed the administration on how its argument wouldn’t jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve — highlighting concerns from conservatives as well.
The Supreme Court is also set to hear another unprecedented case on January 21, in which Trump is attempting to remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, an action that directly challenges the autonomy of the central bank.
A Step Toward the “Unitary Executive”
The administration has grounded its argument in the unitary executive theory, a conservative doctrine asserting that the president holds full control over the entire executive branch — including independent agencies historically insulated from politics.
Trump fired Slaughter and another Democratic FTC commissioner in March, drawing backlash from consumer-protection groups and antitrust advocates who say the moves were intended to eliminate resistance to large corporate interests.
Lower courts blocked the firing, but in September, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to remove Slaughter while the justices consider the case — a decision opposed by all three liberals.
A final ruling is expected by June.