The Supreme Court’s latest move to consider expanding President Donald Trump’s control over independent agencies has sparked a fierce debate about executive power.
According to AP News, the court announced on Monday it will examine whether to overturn a 1935 ruling, known as Humphrey’s Executor, which limits presidential removals of commissioners to cases of misconduct or neglect. The decision comes alongside a 6-3 ruling allowing Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, while the broader legal battle unfolds.
This isn’t just a dry legal spat; it’s a fundamental question of whether the president should steer the ship of agencies like the FTC, which enforces consumer protections and antitrust laws. The conservative majority on the court has already hinted they lean toward giving Trump broader removal powers, signaling a potential seismic shift.
The 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which stemmed from Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to oust an FTC commissioner during the New Deal era, set a clear boundary. It ruled unanimously that presidents could only remove such officials for a specific cause, not personal or political whims.
That ruling birthed an era of robust independent agencies tasked with overseeing critical areas like labor relations and public airwaves. For decades, it’s been a thorn in the side of those who believe the executive branch should have tighter reins over these bodies.
Now, with Trump’s agenda in play, the Justice Department argues he should be able to dismiss board members for any reason. Their stance, articulated by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, claims that limiting this power inflicts “irreparable harm” on the president’s ability to govern effectively.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply dissented on the court’s interim decision to allow Slaughter’s firing. Kagan wrote, “Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals,” yet the majority keeps handing Trump unchecked control over these agencies.
Her point cuts to the core: if presidents can fire at will, what stops regulatory decisions from becoming mere political pawns? Slaughter’s attorneys echo this, warning that stripping away removal protections could destabilize the economy by prioritizing partisan motives over expertise.
“Giving the executive branch unchecked power over who sits on these boards and commissions would have seismic implications for our economy that will harm ordinary Americans,” her legal team stated. It’s a sobering thought when you consider the FTC’s role in safeguarding consumers from corporate overreach.
The court’s focus isn’t limited to the FTC; it has already greenlit similar firings across other independent bodies in recent months. While the Federal Reserve might be treated differently, as hinted by the justices, the case of fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook could test those boundaries soon.
Meanwhile, the court declined to hear related cases from Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Those disputes, involving agencies that handle labor practices and federal worker grievances, will continue grinding through lower courts.
Justice Neil Gorsuch has weighed in on the remedy side, noting in February that fired employees might win back pay but not reinstatement. This pragmatic view suggests the court isn’t inclined to fully undo a president’s actions, even if they’re later deemed improper.
Arguments are slated for December, unusually early before lower courts have fully weighed in, showing the urgency the justices place on this matter. It’s a chance to either cement or dismantle a 90-year-old framework that has shaped how independent agencies operate.
The outcome could redefine the balance between presidential authority and congressional intent. If Trump gains the ability to fire at will, agencies meant to act as neutral watchdogs might bend too easily to executive priorities, risking the very stability they were designed to protect.
At stake is more than just a few board seats; it’s the integrity of a system that affects everyday Americans through consumer rights, labor fairness, and beyond. Let’s hope the court strikes
