Supreme Court expands presidential authority to remove independent agency heads while preserving Fed independence
In two split decisions, the Court ruled that the president may fire commissioners of most independent agencies at will, but affirmed that Federal Reserve governors can only be removed for cause and must be given an opportunity to contest allegations.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two contrasting rulings on presidential removal power. In a 6-3 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Court held that Congress cannot limit the president’s authority to dismiss members of more than 20 independent federal agencies, overturning a century-old restriction. The ruling arose from a lawsuit by former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who challenged her March 2025 termination by President Donald Trump. The majority said the president must be able to remove officials who do not work with him, emphasizing executive accountability.
In a separate 5-4 case, the Court protected the independence of the Federal Reserve by blocking the president’s attempt to fire Governor Lisa D. Cook without allowing her to contest the allegations of mortgage fraud. The majority stressed that the central bank’s unique role requires protection from political interference, noting that removing a Fed official “at will” would undermine the institution’s statutory independence.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in the FTC case, warning that the majority’s broad approach could set a precedent extending beyond the immediate dispute. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented in the Fed case, arguing that the decision grants the president “unbridled authority” over independent agencies.
President Trump hailed the FTC ruling on social media as a historic expansion of executive power, while Governor Cook praised the Fed decision as a reaffirmation of the bank’s duty to make policy based on evidence rather than political pressure. Legal scholars noted that the split outcomes leave many questions unresolved about the standards for “cause” removals and may invite further challenges to agency independence.
