President Donald Trump might just get the green light to clean house at independent federal agencies with the Supreme Court’s apparent blessing.
Newsmax reported that the nation’s highest court signaled on Monday that it’s leaning toward expanding presidential power to remove board members of these agencies without cause, potentially overturning a nearly century-old precedent.
Let’s rewind to 1935, when the Humphrey’s Executor decision tied the hands of presidents, limiting their ability to fire certain officials unless for specific reasons like inefficiency or neglect.
Fast forward to today, and the court’s conservative majority seems ready to toss that restriction—or at least give it a serious haircut.
Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t mince words, calling the Humphrey’s Executor ruling “a dry husk.” Well, if that’s not a polite way to say “outdated,” what is?
This all stems from Trump’s decision to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter without stated cause, prompting his legal team to push for a full reversal of the 1935 precedent.
Trump hasn’t stopped at the FTC—he’s also shown the door to members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Only two officials, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Library of Congress copyright official Shira Perlmutter, have managed to dodge the axe so far.
Regarding Cook, Trump is gunning for her removal over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which she firmly denies, while the court hints it might handle the Federal Reserve with kid gloves due to economic stability concerns.
The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices appear to back Trump’s stance, even as legal battles persist, while the three liberal justices raise objections to this unchecked power.
Chief Justice Roberts has been chipping away at limits on presidential firing authority for over a decade, notably writing in 2020 that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception.” That’s a zinger that cuts through progressive arguments like a hot knife through butter.
Adding to this, Roberts has also framed the firing power as one of the president’s untouchable authorities, free from Congressional meddling, in a separate immunity ruling.
A side issue in the Slaughter case is whether judges can reinstate fired officials if the dismissal is deemed unlawful, a question that could impact Cook as her challenge heads to arguments in January.
Justice Neil Gorsuch has previously suggested that while back pay might be on the table for victorious employees, reinstatement is a tougher sell—hardly a comforting thought for those on the chopping block.
As the court wrestles with these questions, one thing is clear: the balance between presidential control and agency independence hangs in the balance, and the outcome could reshape how Washington operates for decades to come.
