U.S. Supreme Court rules Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday in Trump v. Slaughter that the president may remove leaders of most independent federal agencies without cause, a major shift in the balance of power between the White House and regulators.

The decision expands presidential control over agencies that were designed to be insulated from direct political pressure. It also substantially weakens Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 precedent that for decades helped shield certain agency leaders from at-will removal.

The case centers on President Donald Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. A lower court had ruled that her firing was unlawful and ordered her reinstated before the Supreme Court reversed that outcome.

What the court decided

Reports on the ruling say Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The immediate effect is broader than the fate of one FTC commissioner. By allowing the president to fire leaders of independent agencies more freely, the court gave future administrations more direct control over regulators who were supposed to operate at greater distance from the White House.

That shift matters for agencies that oversee antitrust, consumer protection and other forms of federal regulation. It raises the prospect of more political turnover inside bodies that historically relied on fixed terms and removal protections to preserve independence.

The ruling also intensifies a long-running separation-of-powers fight over how far Congress can go in insulating executive-branch officials from presidential control.

How the fight reached the court

The dispute began in March 2025, when Trump fired Slaughter. The White House had described the move as tied to her incompatibility with administration priorities.

Slaughter challenged the removal in court. In July 2025, a lower court ruled that her dismissal was unlawful and ordered her reinstated.

That set up the Supreme Court review that ended with Monday’s ruling for Trump.

The timeline matters because it shows how the case moved from a single personnel dispute into a broader constitutional test about agency independence and executive authority.

Why the FTC matters

The FTC is one of the clearest agencies affected by the decision. It plays a central role in antitrust enforcement, consumer protection and broader market oversight.

For years, Humphrey’s Executor has been the core precedent supporting the structure of the FTC and similar multi-member expert agencies. The court’s ruling substantially narrows that protection and makes it easier for presidents to replace agency leaders without waiting for cause-based removal standards to apply.

That could affect both the pace and the direction of FTC enforcement. A more politically responsive leadership structure may change priorities, staffing choices and litigation strategy inside the agency.

It could also matter beyond the FTC. Other independent regulators that rely on similar removal protections may now face fresh legal pressure, internal uncertainty or renewed challenges to their leadership structures.

Federal Reserve exception

Reports say the court separately preserved Federal Reserve independence in a related matter involving Lisa Cook.

That distinction is important because it suggests the justices may not be treating every independent institution the same way. Even as the court broadened presidential removal power over many agencies, it appears to have left room for different treatment of the Fed.

For markets and policymakers, that carveout may limit the sense that the ruling wipes out all agency insulation at once. But it still leaves most independent regulators facing a more presidentially controlled future.

Reaction and next steps

Trump celebrated the ruling as a major expansion of presidential authority. The decision is likely to trigger renewed debate over how much independence federal agencies should have from the White House.

The dissenting justices are expected to frame the ruling as destabilizing and dangerous for the structure of modern regulation. The full opinion and separate writings will be watched closely for any limits the court may have placed on its holding.

The next questions are practical as much as legal. Watch for statements from the FTC, the White House and Slaughter’s legal team, along with any actions affecting other independent regulators.

The ruling may also affect pending enforcement priorities inside agencies that depend on leadership continuity. If presidents can now remove more agency heads at will, the political stakes of agency appointments and removals rise immediately.

The broader fight over independent agencies is unlikely to end with this decision. Instead, the case is likely to shape future litigation, agency staffing and the scope of presidential power for years to come.