Supreme Court to Hear Case That Could Strip Federal Agencies of Enforcement Power

This winter, the marble steps leading to the Supreme Court seem heavier. Inside, nine justices are debating an issue that may seem technical but isn’t: whether Congress has the authority to establish regulations or if a president may fire officials in charge of organizations like the Federal Trade Commission at any time, for any reason. This kind of case has the potential to subtly transform the federal government as a whole.

In a sharp letter, President Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March, claiming that her work didn’t fit with the goals of his administration. That was all. No inefficiency. No disregard. When Congress established the FTC more than a century ago, it stated that a president could remove an FTC commissioner for three reasons: no malfeasance. Slaughter filed a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court is currently considering whether Trump was justified in his actions. Not only will her fate be determined by the response, but dozens of independent agencies and their administrators will also be affected.

A case known as Humphrey’s Executor has served as a sort of constitutional compromise for almost 90 years. By requiring “cause” for removal, Congress could establish organizations such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the National Labor Relations Board, protecting their leaders from the whims of the president. Obviously, presidents detested this arrangement. However, it persisted because it was believed that certain tasks, such as market regulation, consumer protection, and labor dispute supervision, should be performed by professionals rather than politicians, and that professionals should be shielded from termination each time the White House changed hands.

If there was ever a consensus, it is no longer there. For years, the Supreme Court has been undermining Humphrey’s Executor. Because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was run by a single director with excessive authority, the Court decided in 2020 that the president could remove the head of the agency at any time. Humphrey’s Executor itself may be on borrowed time, according to the wording in that ruling. Time seems to be running out now.

Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices during the December oral arguments that Congress had gone too far in attempting to restrict the president’s authority over executive agencies. He maintained that the president, not Congress or unelected commissioners, has executive authority under the Constitution. Sauer suggested the Court could make a limited decision when the justices questioned him about whether overturning Humphrey’s Executor would grant the president the authority to fire anyone, including cabinet members who are legally protected. Court observers, however, didn’t believe it. If his argument is accepted, it would appear to be universally applicable.

Slaughter’s lawyer, Amit Agarwal, defended the status quo. He claimed that independent agencies were distinct from cabinet departments and that Congress had the power to organize agencies however it saw fit. He pointed out that Congress wanted the FTC to be free from partisan pressure, which is why it was created as a multi-member commission. Congress did not intend for the agency to become an arm of the White House if commissioners could be fired at will. The justices appeared to be split along predictable lines based on their questions. Agarwal’s arguments appeared to be met with skepticism by the six conservative justices. It appeared that the three liberals believed it would be a mistake to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.

It’s difficult to ignore the timing. Trump has already fired representatives from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the National Labor Relations Board. He gave the same explanation in each instance: they didn’t fit with his priorities. Due to Humphrey’s Executor, the lower courts decided against him. However, the Supreme Court’s decision to halt those reinstatements while the cases are pending is a clear indication of the majority’s direction. In Slaughter’s case, the Court even granted an emergency stay before agreeing to hear the case before an appeals court had made a decision—a highly unusual move. You don’t do that unless you intend to make a significant change.

There will be repercussions if the Court rules in favor of Trump. For-cause removal protection is available to over 20 independent agencies. The Federal Reserve. the SEC. The FTC. The CPSC and NLRB. organizations that oversee everything from consumer goods to workplace safety to financial markets. These agencies will begin to resemble traditional executive departments in appearance and behavior if their leaders are subject to termination at will, with policy shifting dramatically with each new president.

Companies are closely observing. Opportunities are seen by some. Companies may find it simpler to advocate for favorable treatment if agency heads are appointed at the president’s whim. Others are concerned about instability. Even if you don’t like the regulations, regulatory certainty is important. It is easier for businesses to plan when they know the regulations won’t change every four years. That certainty disappears if loyalists who will change the rules can be installed by each new administration.

The Court’s ruling in the Federal Reserve-related case of Trump v. Cook may provide hints about the justices’ willingness to go. The Fed is different—it is more central to the economy, more independent, and more insulated. The Court’s decision to allow Trump to remove Fed governors at his discretion would imply that the justices are ready to implement their new rule widely. Some independent agencies may continue to exist in their current form if they make an exception for the Fed. Even so, there would be difficult questions about which agencies are protected and why.

The Court was using its shadow docket to “reshape the Nation’s separation of powers” without a thorough briefing or argument, Justice Kagan cautioned in her dissent to the emergency stay. She had good reason to be worried. The stakes are high and the Court is moving quickly. Not just the FTC would be impacted by a decision against Slaughter. The president’s relationship with the entire administrative state would be redefined as a result.

The justices will have to resolve a conflict at the center of this case. According to the Constitution, the president has executive authority. But it also gives Congress the power to create agencies and set the terms of how they operate. For nearly a century, the Court has tried to balance those two principles. Now it seems ready to tip the scales decisively in favor of the president. Whether that’s a restoration of constitutional order or a dangerous expansion of executive power depends on who you ask.

The ruling is expected sometime this summer, likely in June or July when the Court typically issues its most consequential decisions. Until then, Rebecca Slaughter remains out of office, and the dozens of other officials Trump has dismissed remain in limbo. The machinery of government continues to turn, but everyone involved knows it might look very different by the time the Court issues its opinion. Watching this unfold, it’s clear that the question isn’t just about removal power. It’s about what kind of government we want—one where expertise and independence are valued, or one where control flows directly from the Oval Office. The justices will decide.