Supreme Court Threatens Decades of Checks on Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies

The U.S. Supreme Court, now firmly in the grip of a conservative majority, is preparing to hear a case that could dramatically undermine the independence of federal agencies and tip the balance of power further in favor of the executive branch. At the heart of the case is former President Donald Trump's politically motivated dismissal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter before her term expired, a move that directly challenges the landmark 1935 Humphrey's Executor v. United States decision. That precedent has long served as a safeguard, restricting the president's ability to purge agency heads without cause and thus protecting agencies from political interference.

This conservative-dominated Court has a track record of expanding presidential powers at the expense of democratic checks and balances. In 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts asserted that "the President's removal power is the rule, not the exception," upholding Trump's firing of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's head—despite the job protections enshrined in Humphrey's Executor. Such decisions threaten to erode the very foundations of independent oversight.

Legal scholars are sounding the alarm. Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, observed that "both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting." Jane Manners, a Fordham University law professor, highlighted that historians have filed briefs to provide critical context on the removal power in the nation's formative years, though she remains skeptical that the Court will respect this nuanced history.

The Justice Department, now echoing the executive's desire for unchecked authority, argues that the president should be able to fire board members at will to advance his agenda, urging the Court to overturn the precedent. Solicitor General D. John Sauer went so far as to claim, "Humphrey's Executor was always egregiously wrong."

A secondary issue in the case could have dire consequences for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and others. The Court will decide whether judges can reinstate officials if a firing is found to be illegal. Justice Neil Gorsuch, another conservative voice, previously wrote that fired employees who prevail in court may receive back pay but not reinstatement—further weakening protections for public servants.

The Court's impending decision could fundamentally alter the balance of power, stripping independent agencies of their autonomy and opening the door to greater presidential meddling in regulatory bodies that are meant to serve the public, not partisan interests.