Key takeaways

The Supreme Court held on June 29, 2026, that for-cause removal protections for FTC members violate the separation of powers.

The decision explicitly overrules the 1935 precedent set in Humphrey's Executor v. United States.

The ruling expands presidential authority to fire members of independent federal agencies at will, potentially impacting the NLRB and EEOC.

Despite the broad ruling, the Court maintained the independence of the Federal Reserve.

The Decision

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Trump v. Slaughter, holding that for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers. The ruling fundamentally alters the balance of power within the federal government, granting the President the authority to fire members of the FTC at will.

Prior to this decision, the President could only remove these commissioners for specific statutory reasons, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. By determining that these restrictions unconstitutionally infringe upon executive authority, the Court explicitly overruled the 1935 precedent set in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. The decision in Trump v. Slaughter marks an expansion of the President's power to control the administrative state and direct the actions of independent federal agencies.

Why It Matters

The ruling effectively dismantles the legal foundation that has shielded independent agency heads from direct presidential control for nearly a century. By striking down the for-cause removal protections at the FTC, the Court expands the President's authority to dismiss officials across the federal bureaucracy.

Legal analysis suggests the ruling may challenge the continued legality of executive agencies that Congress intended to operate independently from the White House. When Congress establishes an independent agency, it typically uses for-cause removal protections to ensure the agency's leadership can make regulatory decisions without fear of immediate political reprisal. Stripping away these protections means a newly elected administration can immediately replace the leadership of regulatory bodies to align with its policy preferences, rather than waiting for commissioners' staggered terms to expire. This structural shift centralizes power within the executive branch, limiting Congress's ability to insulate regulatory and adjudicatory functions from presidential oversight.

Who Should Care

For lawyers

Administrative law practitioners must immediately reassess the structural validity of multimember agencies. The decision opens new avenues to challenge agency actions by arguing that the underlying structure of the agency violates the separation of powers. Attorneys representing clients in enforcement proceedings before agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may now raise structural defenses based on the Slaughter precedent.

Litigators will need to evaluate whether ongoing rulemakings or administrative adjudications are vulnerable to constitutional challenges. If an agency's leadership structure is deemed unconstitutional under this new framework, the validity of the agency's past and pending actions could be called into question. Defense counsel should consider preserving separation of powers arguments in all administrative proceedings before agencies that currently operate under for-cause removal statutes.

For the regulated public

Businesses and individuals subject to federal regulation will face a more volatile regulatory environment. Because the President can now fire agency heads at will, regulatory priorities are likely to shift dramatically with each change in presidential administration.

A company negotiating a settlement, planning a merger, or facing an enforcement action from an independent agency must account for the possibility that the agency's leadership and its enforcement philosophy could change overnight. Long-term compliance planning will become more difficult, as the interpretation and enforcement of federal regulations will be more closely tied to the political priorities of the sitting President. Corporate counsel and compliance officers must prepare for more rapid swings in regulatory policy.

Legal Background

The concept of the independent federal agency rests on the idea that certain regulatory bodies should operate free from direct political interference. In 1935, the Supreme Court decided Humphrey's Executor v. United States, upholding a statute that prevented the President from removing an FTC commissioner except for cause.

That precedent established that Congress could create agencies headed by multimember commissions with staggered terms and protect those commissioners from at-will termination by the President. The Court in 1935 reasoned that the FTC performed quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, rather than purely executive functions, justifying its independence from the President. For decades, this framework allowed agencies to enforce regulations, draft rules, and adjudicate disputes with a degree of insulation from the executive branch. Congress relied on this precedent to structure numerous other federal agencies, embedding for-cause removal protections into the statutes governing various commissions and boards.

What the Court Did

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court determined that the for-cause removal protections shielding FTC commissioners are unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the separation of powers requires the President to have the ability to remove executive branch officials to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

By overruling Humphrey's Executor, the Court concluded that Congress cannot restrict the President's removal power over the FTC. The decision rejects the premise that agencies performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions can be entirely insulated from presidential control. However, the Court drew a specific line regarding the nation's central bank. The decision explicitly maintained the independence of the Federal Reserve despite the broader ruling against for-cause protections. The Court differentiated the Federal Reserve from the FTC, preserving the central bank's insulation from at-will presidential removal.

How It May Be Applied

The immediate effect of the decision falls on the FTC, but the logic extends to other multimember agencies. The ruling could directly impact entities like the NLRB and the EEOC, where commissioners currently enjoy similar statutory removal protections.

Lower courts will now have to determine whether the specific structures of these other agencies survive the new standard set by Slaughter. Legal analysis indicates that the ruling will spur a wave of litigation aimed at dismantling the independence of other executive agencies. A major open question is how the preservation of the Federal Reserve's independence will be interpreted and applied to other financial regulators. Courts will need to define the precise boundaries of why the Federal Reserve remains protected while the FTC does not, and whether entities like the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Securities and Exchange Commission fall on the protected or unprotected side of that line.

Agency Structure Before and After

Feature	Pre-Slaughter Framework	Post-Slaughter Reality
FTC Commissioner Removal	Restricted to "for cause" only	At will by the President
Presidential Control	Limited by statutory protections	Expanded direct authority over agency heads
Federal Reserve Status	Independent	Independent (Maintained by the Court)
Other Multimember Agencies	Presumed constitutional under 1935 precedent	Legality challenged (e.g., NLRB, EEOC)

Plain-English Translation

What does "for-cause removal" mean? When a law includes a "for-cause removal" provision, it means the President cannot fire an official simply over a policy disagreement. The President must have a specific, legally valid reason—such as the official committing a crime or severely neglecting their duties. By striking down this protection for the FTC, the Supreme Court ruled that the President can fire these officials for any reason, including political differences. This gives the White House direct control over how the agency operates, ending the era of the truly "independent" federal agency for many parts of the government.

This article is general legal information and commentary about legal developments. It is not legal advice, does not address your specific situation, and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney. Reading this article and contacting us through this website do not create an attorney-client relationship.

Sources & authorities

Trump v. Slaughter — source
Trump v. Slaughter — source
Trump v. Slaughter — source

Supreme Court Expands Presidential Power to Fire Agency Heads

Key takeaways