A major constitutional showdown over presidential authority is unfolding at the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices will hear arguments Monday on whether President Donald Trump can dismiss members of independent federal agencies without cause — a move that would dismantle nearly a century of legal precedent.
The Trump administration is urging the court to overturn the 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor, which has long shielded agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from direct presidential control. The case stems from Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and echoes the president’s broader strategy to exert greater influence over institutions historically insulated from White House politics. The court’s conservative majority has already shown sympathy for the administration’s position. In decisions over the past year, the justices have allowed Trump to remove officials at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission even as their challenges were pending.
The only officials to avoid removal thus far are Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Library of Congress copyright chief Shira Perlmutter — with justices signaling that the Fed may be evaluated differently given its core role in economic stability. Slaughter’s case also raises a second question: even if a firing is deemed unlawful, can courts reinstate the ousted official, or are they limited to awarding back pay? Justice Neil Gorsuch has argued that reinstatement should not be an option, a view that could prevent Cook from reclaiming her position even if she prevails in court. Chief Justice John Roberts has authored multiple rulings since 2010 trimming Congress’s power to restrict presidential removal authority. In 2020, he wrote that a president’s ability to dismiss appointees is “the rule, not the exception,” and in the 2024 immunity decision shielding Trump from election interference prosecution, Roberts listed the removal power among presidential authorities Congress “cannot curtail.”
The dispute revisits a clash dating back to the New Deal era, when President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to fire an FTC commissioner who resisted his economic agenda. The court ruled unanimously in Humphrey’s Executor that the president could only dismiss a commissioner for specific causes like neglect or malfeasance — a ruling that preserved the FTC’s independence and set limits on executive control. If the court overturns that framework, the decision could dramatically expand presidential power, giving Trump — and future presidents — sweeping authority to purge leadership across agencies ranging from financial regulation and labor enforcement to consumer protection and environmental oversight.
