The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to review a case that could give the president more power over independent government agencies. This case could change how much control the president has over parts of the federal government that are supposed to be free from political pressure. The case involves a legal question that dates back nearly 90 years.
In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States* that the president could not fire leaders of certain independent agencies without a good reason. These agencies include the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and others. The idea was to keep these agencies independent so they could make fair and neutral decisions.
But now, the court may change that rule. The case the court is looking at involves FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. She was appointed by President Joe Biden but was fired by President Donald Trump after he returned to office. Slaughter says her firing was illegal because the law protects FTC commissioners from being removed without a clear reason, like wrongdoing or failure to do their job.
The current Supreme Court allowed Trump’s firing of Slaughter to stay in place for now. The court will now decide whether the old 1935 ruling still makes sense.
Legal experts say this case could have big effects. Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar at the Heritage Foundation, says the Constitution gives the president full control over the executive branch. He believes that means the president should be able to fire people at agencies that are part of the executive branch. He compares it to a CEO running a company — the CEO can hire and fire as needed, and the president should have the same power.
Joshua Blackman, a law professor in Texas, agrees that the ruling could apply to many agencies, not just the FTC. He says the only question is whether some agencies, like the Federal Reserve, might be treated differently because of their special role.
This is not the first time the court has taken steps in this direction. In 2020, the court ruled that the president could fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) without cause. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the power to remove top officials is part of the president’s constitutional duties. If the president can’t remove people, he can’t truly manage the executive branch.
This idea is tied to a legal theory called the “unitary executive.” Supporters of this theory believe the president should have full control over all parts of the executive branch. That includes the power to fire anyone who works under him, even at agencies that have traditionally been more independent.
President Trump and many of his allies support this theory. When Trump returned to office, he acted quickly to remove people from independent agencies who he believed did not support his policies. Legal experts say this case could help Trump and future presidents carry out their agendas more directly.
Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Boston University, said Trump has done more to shape this legal idea than most legal scholars ever could. If the court rules in his favor, it would mark a major shift in how the federal government operates.
A ruling that gives the president more firing power would strengthen executive authority but also raise concerns. Critics worry that independent agencies could become more political and less neutral. Supporters argue that presidents should be able to control the people who carry out government policy.
This case could also affect how Congress creates and oversees government agencies. If the court strikes down protections for agency leaders, Congress may need to rethink how these agencies are set up and how they stay independent.
The court is expected to hear arguments later this year. No matter how it rules, the decision will likely have a lasting impact on the balance of power in Washington and on the president’s ability to manage the federal government.
