Supreme Court Supercharges Oval Office Power

Presidential office with desk, flags, and portraits.
Photo: Shutterstock

The Supreme Court just told the President he can fire federal regulators whenever he wants — and wiped out a 91-year-old legal shield to do it.

Story Highlights

  • The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President can fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners at will, overturning a 1935 precedent.
  • Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Constitution requires executive branch officers to remain accountable to the President — which means the President must be able to remove them.
  • The ruling throws out “for-cause” removal protections at the FTC and likely applies to other independent agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.
  • A separate companion case carved out a narrow exception for the Federal Reserve, shielding its board members from at-will removal.

What the Court Decided

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that Congress cannot shield FTC commissioners from being fired by the President.

The case started when President Trump removed two Democrat FTC commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, citing policy disagreements.

Under the old law, commissioners could only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” The Court said that protection is unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote plainly: “What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms — the President may remove his subordinates at will.” The Court found that FTC commissioners “unquestionably exercise executive power” by writing rules, deciding cases, and filing lawsuits.

Because that power belongs to the executive branch under Article II of the Constitution, the President must be able to control — and remove — the people who wield it.

A 91-Year-Old Precedent Falls

The ruling overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 case that had protected independent agency heads from presidential removal for nine decades.

The old ruling called the FTC’s role “quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative,” meaning it was more like a court or a legislature than an arm of the executive branch. The new majority called that framing a “legal fiction” that no longer matches how the FTC actually operates today.

The Court noted that earlier decisions — including Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 — had already chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor for years. Roberts wrote that if anything was left of the old precedent, the Court was overruling it now.

The three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented sharply. Sotomayor called the decision “grievously wrong” and warned it gives the President “far greater power than ever before.”

What This Means Going Forward

The ruling reaches well beyond the FTC. Legal experts say it likely applies to any multi-member independent agency that exercises executive power — including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

Agency laws stay on the books. The FTC can still regulate, investigate, and enforce — but the people running it now serve at the President’s pleasure, just like Cabinet members.

One key exception emerged in a companion case, Trump v. Cook. The Court recognized a “special arrangement sanctioned by history” for the Federal Reserve, leaving its board members with some protection from at-will removal.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote separately to note the decision does not strip agencies of their powers — it simply moves accountability for those powers back to the President, where the Constitution places it. For Americans who have long argued that unelected bureaucrats answer to no one, that shift is exactly the point.

Sources:

wiley.law, abcnews.com, npr.org, yalejreg.com, sidley.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

© 2026 Priority News Now. All Rights Reserved.