Supreme Court Hands Presidents Sweeping New Authority Over Independent Federal Agencies

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court Overturns a 91-Year Precedent: The Court's 6-3 decision overrules the central holding of Humphrey's Executor, giving presidents broad authority to remove FTC commissioners without cause.
• Independent Agencies Face a New Constitutional Reality: The ruling weakens long-standing statutory protections designed to insulate independent commissions from direct presidential control, potentially affecting agencies beyond the FTC.
• Regulatory Continuity Could Become Less Predictable: Agencies such as the FTC may see leadership and enforcement priorities shift more rapidly with changes in presidential administrations, increasing uncertainty for regulated organizations.
• Other Federal Regulators May Be Next: The decision places agencies including the EEOC, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission on uncertain constitutional footing as similar legal challenges move through the courts.
• The Federal Reserve Remains an Exception: In a separate 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in office while litigation continues, leaving the Fed's independence unresolved.

Deep Dive

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that President Donald Trump lawfully removed Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March 2025 without citing any statutory cause, overturning the core holding of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that had long shielded members of independent commissions from at-will dismissal. The ruling dramatically expands presidential authority over agencies that Congress intentionally designed to operate with a degree of independence from the White House.

The decision reshapes assumptions that have underpinned the structure of dozens of federal regulators for generations, raising fresh questions about the durability of enforcement priorities, regulatory continuity and the independence of agencies responsible for everything from workplace discrimination to product safety.

As reported by NPR, the case arose after Trump dismissed Slaughter, one of the FTC's Democratic commissioners, informing her only that her continued service was "inconsistent with the Administration's priorities." Federal law governing the FTC permits commissioners to be removed only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." None of those reasons was cited. A lower court concluded the firing violated the protections established under Humphrey's Executor. The Supreme Court disagreed.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that officials exercising executive authority must ultimately remain accountable to the president who is constitutionally charged with executing the law.

"Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work," Roberts wrote. "Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him."

The reasoning marks the culmination of a constitutional project that has unfolded over several years. During Trump's first term, the court narrowed Humphrey's Executor when it held that the president could remove the single director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. At the time, the court distinguished the CFPB from multimember commissions like the FTC. That distinction has now largely disappeared.

Roberts pointed to the modern FTC as an agency exercising extensive executive authority, noting that it administers and enforces roughly 80 federal statutes touching nearly every sector of the economy. Those responsibilities, he wrote, are "the very essence" of executing federal law.

The FTC was deliberately structured as a bipartisan commission, with Congress limiting any one political party to three of its five seats. The purpose was not simply partisan balance. It was institutional continuity. Commissioners serve staggered terms so that enforcement policy would not swing dramatically every time control of the White House changed hands.

That structure now looks considerably more fragile. Presidents may remove commissioners from the opposing party before their terms expire, leaving vacancies until replacements are confirmed. Trump has already dismissed two Democratic commissioners, leaving only Republican members on the commission.

For companies facing antitrust investigations, consumer protection enforcement or merger reviews, the decision introduces another variable into an already evolving regulatory landscape. Leadership turnover may now occur far more quickly than the statutory terms Congress originally envisioned.

According to NPR's reporting, the ruling also places renewed constitutional pressure on other agencies whose members have traditionally enjoyed similar removal protections, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Each performs functions that affect corporate governance, employment practices, workplace compliance and operational risk across virtually every major industry.

That uncertainty matters because independent agencies were designed to provide consistency that outlasted election cycles. Whether one agreed with a particular enforcement agenda was almost beside the point. Businesses could generally expect that the institutional framework itself would remain stable. Thursday's decision changes that expectation.

The majority stopped short of applying the same reasoning everywhere. In a separate 5-4 decision issued alongside the FTC case, the court allowed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in office while litigation continues in the lower courts, leaving unresolved whether the Federal Reserve enjoys constitutional protections distinct from other independent agencies.

The court's liberal justices viewed the FTC decision as a fundamental break with constitutional tradition.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, called the ruling "grievously wrong," arguing that it grants presidents authority that neither Congress nor prior Supreme Court precedent recognized.

"The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted," she wrote, warning that the majority had transformed the constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law into a license to disregard statutory limits imposed by Congress.

Perhaps the clearest sentence in the majority opinion was also the shortest.

"If anything more is left of Humphrey's, the Court overrules it."

That sentence closes a chapter that lasted more than nine decades. What follows is likely to be written not only by future Supreme Court cases but by every administration deciding how aggressively to exercise powers the court has now confirmed.

‍The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey.