Supreme Court rules Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies

The Supreme Court on June 29, 2026, ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump can fire leaders of independent federal agencies at will, a major expansion of presidential removal power and a sharp break from long-standing precedent.

The case arose from Trump’s 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The court’s ruling overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 decision that had limited a president’s ability to remove certain agency officials.

The decision is likely to affect how future presidents oversee agencies that were designed to operate with some insulation from direct White House control. Coverage of the ruling says the court treated the Federal Reserve as a special exception.

What the court decided

The ruling is a 6-3 win for Trump and for a broader theory of presidential power over the executive branch. The majority concluded that the president cannot be saddled with officials he cannot work with, according to early coverage of the opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, according to reporting on the decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson were among the dissenters.

The immediate dispute centered on whether Slaughter could be removed from the FTC, but the reach of the ruling goes much further. It weakens the legal foundation that has protected commissioners and similar leaders at a range of independent agencies from being dismissed without cause.

That makes the case more than a personnel dispute. It is a significant separation-of-powers ruling that shifts authority toward the White House and away from independent regulators.

How the case got here

Trump fired Slaughter on March 1, 2025. She challenged the removal, and a lower court later ruled the firing unlawful and reinstated her on July 17, 2025.

The Supreme Court then stayed that reinstatement order and agreed to hear the case on September 22, 2025. That set up a direct test of how far a president’s removal power extends over so-called independent agencies.

By the time the justices ruled, the case had become a vehicle for a much larger constitutional fight over the administrative state. The FTC dispute gave the court a chance to revisit a precedent that had long limited presidential control over agency commissioners.

The timeline matters because it shows how quickly the case moved from an individual firing to a national test of executive power. What began as a challenge to one commissioner became a ruling with consequences for multiple agencies.

Why Humphrey’s Executor mattered

Humphrey’s Executor had been the key precedent protecting many independent agencies from direct presidential removal. It stood for the idea that some regulators should have a buffer from political pressure so they can enforce the law without constant White House control.

The FTC is one of the clearest examples of that model. It enforces consumer protection and antitrust laws and is structured as a bipartisan multi-member commission.

The court’s decision undercuts that model. By overruling Humphrey’s Executor, it substantially expands presidential control over the kind of agencies that Congress created to be partly insulated from politics.

That shift could matter in areas where enforcement choices are often contested, including antitrust, consumer protection and other regulatory actions. It also changes the legal environment for agency leaders who had expected to serve with some protection from dismissal.

The Federal Reserve carveout

One notable part of the coverage is the court’s treatment of the Federal Reserve as a special exception.

That carveout matters because it suggests the court is not applying the ruling in exactly the same way to every independent institution. Even as the majority expanded presidential firing power broadly, it left open a distinct position for the Fed.

The full opinion language will determine how narrow or broad that exception is. For now, the reporting indicates the court drew a line around the central bank while otherwise rejecting limits on removal power for independent agencies.

That distinction will likely matter in future disputes over whether the ruling reaches other bodies that were designed with special protection from direct presidential control.

Why it matters now

The practical effect of the ruling is to give the White House more control over agencies that shape major parts of the economy and regulatory system.

For the FTC, that means a president may have more room to influence enforcement posture, leadership continuity and the direction of investigations or rulemaking. The same logic may affect other independent agencies if similar removal fights reach the courts.

More broadly, the decision could reshape separation-of-powers doctrine around the administrative state. It moves the law in the direction of a stronger unitary executive theory, with fewer limits on presidential authority over agency heads.

That could have long-term consequences for how Congress designs regulators and how presidents manage them once in office.

What happens next

The next focus will be the full opinion and any separate dissents, which may explain the scope of the ruling and how the Federal Reserve exception is supposed to work.

Attention will also turn to reactions from the White House, the FTC and other independent agencies. Those statements may clarify how quickly the administration intends to use the ruling.

The decision is also likely to affect ongoing removal disputes involving other agency leaders. Lower courts will now have to decide how broadly to apply the new precedent.

For now, the court has delivered a clear message: the president’s power to fire leaders of independent agencies is much stronger than it was under the old Humphrey’s Executor framework.