US Supreme Court rules Trump can fire leaders of independent agencies

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that President Donald Trump can remove the leaders of most independent federal agencies, a major separation-of-powers decision that expands White House control over regulators and weakens a 1935 precedent long used to protect agency independence.

The ruling came in a case tied to Trump’s fight over the attempted firing of Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. It gives presidents far more room to dismiss agency heads who had previously been shielded by for-cause removal protections.

The court also separately blocked Trump from immediately removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving what appears to be a narrow exception for the central bank.

What the court changed

At the center of the case was Humphrey’s Executor, the Supreme Court precedent that had long been the foundation for independent-agency protections. That 1935 decision helped Congress insulate many commissioners and board members from removal except for cause.

Monday’s ruling sharply narrows that framework. Independent agencies such as the FTC and the National Labor Relations Board now face a more direct line of presidential control over their leadership.

The practical effect is significant. Agency heads who once had stronger protection from political turnover can now be replaced more easily when a new administration wants to change course.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, and Trump celebrated the outcome as a major expansion of executive power.

How the case got here

The dispute grew out of Trump’s attempt to fire Slaughter from the FTC. That fight became the vehicle for the court to revisit how far the Constitution allows Congress to limit presidential removal power.

Independent agencies were designed to operate with some distance from direct White House control. Their structure has long been justified as a way to reduce political pressure in areas such as antitrust, labor, and financial regulation.

The court’s decision upends much of that settled understanding. It also signals that the justices are willing to keep narrowing the legal space for agency independence after earlier decisions had already chipped away at it.

The Fed exception

The separate treatment of Lisa Cook and the Federal Reserve stood out as an important carve-out. The court did not allow Trump to remove Cook immediately, leaving in place, for now, a narrow protection for the central bank.

That distinction suggests the court may see monetary policy institutions differently from other agencies. It also leaves open an important question: how broadly courts and lower agencies will read the Fed exception going forward.

For now, the ruling creates a split result. Most independent-agency leaders are newly exposed to removal, while the Fed appears to remain on different footing.

What it means for agencies

The ruling is most directly relevant to agencies such as the FTC and the NLRB, where leaders had previously relied on for-cause protections. Those agencies help police markets, labor relations, and other areas where independence from the White House has been considered important.

The decision raises immediate questions about how Congress can still design agencies to check presidential influence. It also invites new disputes over whether other bodies can retain meaningful independence under the Constitution.

Lower courts and agencies will now have to work through the ruling’s reach in real time. If more removal fights reach the courts quickly, the practical effects of the decision could appear almost immediately.

What comes next

The White House, the FTC, the Federal Reserve, and other independent-agency leaders are likely to respond in the coming days. The administration may also move quickly to use the ruling in other removal disputes.

Another open question is whether Congress can respond legislatively and, if so, how much of any fix would survive judicial review. The ruling does not settle that fight; it shifts the balance of power and leaves the next round to lawmakers, agencies, and lower courts.

For now, the court’s message is clear: the president’s removal power over most independent agencies is much stronger than it was before Monday’s decision, even as the Federal Reserve appears to remain a special case.