Supreme Court says presidents can fire leaders of most independent agencies

The Supreme Court on June 29 ruled 6-3 that presidents may remove leaders of most independent federal agencies, a major expansion of executive power that could reshape the administrative state.

The decision narrows or effectively overrules Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that had long limited presidential control over certain agency heads. The court preserved a special exception for the Federal Reserve, though, signaling that central bank independence will remain on a different footing for now.

AP reported that the ruling supports President Donald Trump’s firings of agency leaders, including officials at the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board. The case arrives at a moment when the court has increasingly been asked to define how much control a president has over the machinery of government.

What the court decided

The justices held that presidents have broad authority to dismiss the leaders of most independent agencies, reducing a key layer of insulation that has existed for decades.

That insulation had been one of the defining features of agencies such as the FTC and the NLRB, which were created to operate with some distance from direct White House pressure. By weakening removal protections, the court gave future presidents more power to replace agency heads with officials more directly aligned with the administration.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The 6-3 split underscores how consequential the ruling is for separation-of-powers law and for the structure of the federal regulatory state.

The court’s treatment of the Federal Reserve was narrower. Rather than applying the same rule across the board, it carved out the central bank and left open a separate path for its independence.

How the dispute reached the court

The ruling comes out of a challenge involving Rebecca Slaughter, whose removal from the FTC helped bring the issue to the court. It also overlaps with a separate fight over Lisa Cook’s job at the Federal Reserve.

AP reported that Cook remains in her post while her challenge continues. Cook has denied the mortgage fraud allegations that the administration used to justify her attempted removal.

That parallel Fed dispute mattered because the justices treated the central bank differently from other agencies. The result is a ruling that broadens presidential power while stopping short of extending that change to the Federal Reserve.

The first reports on the decision appeared Monday afternoon, with AP publishing at 14:24:26 UTC and The Guardian following minutes later. The timing confirms this is a same-day breaking development rather than a delayed interpretation of an older order.

Why Humphrey’s Executor mattered

For nearly 90 years, Humphrey’s Executor stood as a major constitutional backstop for independent agencies. It limited the president’s ability to remove certain agency leaders at will and helped preserve a buffer between the White House and bodies responsible for regulation, enforcement and oversight.

By narrowing or overruling that precedent, the court changed the legal ground under a wide range of agencies. The immediate effect is a stronger presidency, but the longer-term effect may be broader uncertainty about what kinds of removal protections can survive future challenges.

That uncertainty is especially important because independent agencies are not marginal parts of government. They handle consumer protection, labor regulation, market oversight and other functions that can have direct effects on businesses, workers and households.

What agencies are affected

The most immediate practical effect falls on agencies like the FTC and the NLRB, which AP said were among the bodies implicated by the ruling.

Those agencies have long been structured to resist abrupt political turnover. Leaders served with some protection from removal so they could pursue enforcement and rulemaking without being fully exposed to changes in presidential preferences.

With the new ruling, presidents are better positioned to change the direction of those agencies quickly by replacing their leadership. That could alter how aggressively agencies enforce the law, how they prioritize investigations and how stable their policymaking becomes across administrations.

The court’s carveout for the Federal Reserve limits the scope of the decision, but it also raises a new question: how narrowly will lower courts read that exception, and could other agencies try to argue for similar treatment?

Institutional stakes

The stakes extend beyond a single removal dispute. If presidents can more easily fire agency leaders, the White House gains greater control over enforcement, rulemaking and regulatory strategy across the federal government.

That shift could make agencies more directly answerable to the president, but it also reduces the independence that Congress built into many regulatory bodies. Supporters of stronger presidential control will see that as a constitutional correction; critics will see it as a blow to institutional checks and balances.

The special treatment of the Federal Reserve is likely to draw close attention. The court appeared to recognize that central bank independence carries distinct historical and policy concerns, especially around monetary policy.

Still, the carveout does not resolve every question. It leaves open whether the Fed exception is limited to the facts of this case, whether it rests on the Fed’s unique role, or whether the court is creating a broader line for future disputes.

What happens next

The full written opinions, including any concurrences or dissents, are likely to matter a great deal. They may explain how far the Fed carveout extends and how broadly lower courts should apply the new rule for other agencies.

Lower courts will now have to apply the decision to pending removal disputes involving other regulators. That could quickly turn the ruling from a constitutional landmark into a practical management tool for future administrations.

Independent agencies, the White House and affected commissioners are also likely to respond as they assess the decision’s immediate impact.

For now, the court has given presidents stronger control over most independent agencies while preserving a narrower path for the Federal Reserve. The result is one of the most significant recent shifts in the law governing the administrative state.