Supreme Court Says Presidents Can Fire Most Independent Agency Leaders at Will

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 29, 2026, that presidents can remove leaders of most independent federal agencies without showing cause, a decision that marks a major expansion of presidential power over the regulatory state.

The ruling in Trump v. Slaughter overrules Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long limited presidential removal power over certain independent regulators. The case stems from Donald Trump’s March 2025 firing of former Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, according to the reporting cited by AP and Barron’s. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The Court’s decision is expected to affect agencies such as the FTC and other multimember commissions that have traditionally been insulated, at least in part, from direct White House control. Coverage of the ruling said the logic could also reach the NLRB, the MSPB and the CPSC.

What changed

For decades, Humphrey’s Executor stood for the idea that Congress could create independent commissions whose leaders did not serve entirely at the president’s pleasure. That arrangement was meant to give agency heads some distance from politics and preserve a measure of continuity in regulation.

The Court’s new ruling changes that balance. Under the majority’s approach, presidents may now remove leaders of most independent agencies even when the dispute involves policy disagreements rather than misconduct.

That matters because removal power is one of the main tools presidents use to shape enforcement priorities, rulemaking agendas and staffing decisions inside agencies that oversee competition, consumer protection, labor and federal administration.

It also gives future presidents more leverage over agency heads who once could rely on fixed terms and removal protections to resist direct political pressure.

Why the FTC case mattered

The court used the FTC dispute as the vehicle for revisiting the constitutionality of those protections. Slaughter’s removal gave the justices a concrete test of whether the old framework still fits the modern administrative state.

The FTC is an especially important test case because it is a multimember independent regulator with broad authority over consumer protection and competition. A ruling there naturally carries implications for similar commissions across the government.

AP and other outlets said the opinion’s logic is not limited to one agency. The immediate fallout is likely to be felt at the FTC first, but the broader message is that independent regulators may no longer be able to rely on removal protections to the same degree.

The Fed exception

The ruling landed alongside a separate development involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. In that matter, the Court did not allow Trump to immediately remove her.

That leaves the Fed in a more protected position than most other independent agencies, at least for now. The Court’s treatment of the Fed shows that it is not treating every independent institution the same way.

AP’s coverage described the Fed carveout as a separate protection that remains in place even as the Court expanded presidential removal power elsewhere. The practical effect is a narrower exception for monetary policy institutions while the broader rule changes for other regulators.

Stakes for the regulatory state

The decision could affect how independent agencies enforce the law. Leaders who know they can be removed at will may be less willing to resist the White House on investigations, enforcement actions or rulemaking priorities.

That is likely to matter most at agencies that regulate markets, labor, consumer finance and public safety. Those bodies were designed in part to make consequential decisions on a longer horizon than a single presidential term.

Supporters of stronger removal power argue that it restores accountability by making agency leaders answer more directly to the elected president. Critics argue that it concentrates too much power in the executive branch and weakens Congress’s design for independent oversight.

The dissent, as described in the reporting, warned that the majority’s approach gives the president too much control over institutions that were intended to operate with some distance from politics.

What happens next

The most immediate fallout is likely to come at the FTC and other commissions that relied on removal protections to preserve some independence from the White House.

Lower courts may also face new disputes over how broadly the Court’s reasoning should extend, especially if agency-specific statutes or older precedents are tested against the new rule.

The reporting points to several near-term developments to watch: agency-specific reactions, statements from regulators and Democrats, and possible further cases testing the reach of the Fed carveout.

The White House may also move quickly to use the new authority, either by replacing current leaders or by pressuring existing ones to align with presidential priorities.

For now, the immediate result is clear: the Court has rewritten the rules for presidential control over much of the federal regulatory state, while leaving one important exception in place at the Federal Reserve.