In Trump v. Slaughter, decided June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned 90 years of precedent and struck down for-cause removal protections for multimember regulatory agencies. The ruling allows President Donald Trump to fire agency members for any reason, r
On June 29. the Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a lever that reaches into the heart of how America’s regulators are kept at arm’s length from politics. The justices overturned 90 years of precedent in Trump v. Slaughter, eliminating protections that had shielded multimember regulatory agencies from presidential removal for policy disagreements.
The decision didn’t just adjust a doctrine. It rewired the machinery of oversight Congress built—so the president can now fire any agency member for any reason.
For decades. Congress created multimember agencies with independence from presidential control. in part by limiting removals to “for cause. ” not to punish leaders for taking positions the White House doesn’t like. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld those for-cause protections in Humphrey’s Executor v. Federal Trade Commission. cementing the progressive-era belief that the “administrative state” should be insulated from the political whims of the executive and legislative branches.
That insulation is now gone.
Writing for the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the Court held “that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.” The ruling affirmed the unitary executive theory as binding law—an idea that all executive power belongs to the president alone.
Trump immediately framed the outcome as a personal victory for presidential control. “Today’s Historic Slaughter Decision by the Supreme Court is the Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!” he posted on social media on Monday.
The case had been brought to court after Trump acted against the Federal Trade Commission. In March 2025, Trump fired FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee, along with commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. The decision notes Bedoya did not join Slaughter’s case because he voluntarily resigned his position. With the new standard set by the Court. the president can now remove executive-branch officials for any reason after Trump v. Slaughter.
Congress’s design is what made this fight so consequential. Multimember agencies were intended to prevent the White House from turning enforcement and rulemaking into a direct extension of electoral politics. But Roberts’s opinion says the earlier protections crossed constitutional lines.
The Court said that Humphrey’s Executor correctly focused on “the character of the office” and that “purely executive” powers must be controlled by the President. The majority said, though, that the Court had “long ago abandoned the notion that there are some powers that are only partly executive.”
The opinion also draws a line for what Congress may do. Roberts wrote that Congress could “establish independent agencies to assist it with its functions. ” but “it may not foist those agencies upon the President. and thus deprive him of ‘the executive power vested [in him] by the Constitution’ — something Humphrey’s itself never purported to permit.”.
When the opinion turns specifically to the FTC, it states that the agency “unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.”
Taken together, the practical result is straightforward: with for-cause removal protections no longer recognized for these agency members, presidents can apply pressure through the threat of removal whenever agencies disagree.
There is, however, one major exception that the Court sidestepped. The opinion states that the history of central banking independence counsels against granting the president such power over the Federal Reserve. but it does not affirmatively rule on whether the Federal Reserve’s board may be covered by for-cause removal protections.
“Our prior cases do not necessarily implicate the constitutionality of such arrangements,” Roberts wrote. “Our opinion today should not be read to do so either.”
That carve-out matters in part because Trump has already been trying to push against Fed independence. The source record states that Trump waged a war to seize control of the Fed by attempting to fire Governor Lisa Cook and by launching a criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell. A judge blocked that investigation from continuing on March 13. and the Supreme Court refused to overrule that lower-court decision on Monday.
The Roberts-written decision in Trump v. Cook. joined by the Court’s liberals and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. explained that Trump’s arguments for Cook’s removal are not likely to succeed. Roberts wrote: “To accept any one of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment — an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”.
In a concurrence in Cook, Kavanaugh added a warning grounded in economics: the Court should not “risk destabilizing the U. S. economy” by not ruling now that the Federal Reserve may remain independent, despite Slaughter. Kavanaugh wrote. “In my view. in light of that historical practice and precedent. the Federal Reserve may continue as an independent agency after Slaughter. ” and said that if its for-cause removal protections were eliminated. “that change must occur through the legislative process.”.
For all the Court’s language about constitutional separation of powers, the Fed exception—and the reliance on concerns like economic stability—creates a vivid fault line in how far the unitary executive theory can be stretched in practice.
Still, the bottom-line shift from Trump v. Slaughter is sweeping. The Court has expanded presidential power by stripping away long-standing for-cause protections that had limited how presidents could remove members of multimember regulatory agencies. The decision gives Trump and future presidents new freedom to restructure the executive branch after each election. with the ability to direct regulatory and law-enforcement officers to do as they please.
It marks a substantial change from the balance governing executive and congressional relations for nearly 100 years—an abrupt break from a doctrine Congress relied on when it tried to insulate rulemaking and enforcement from politics.
Trump v. Slaughter Supreme Court for-cause removal multimember regulatory agencies Humphrey’s Executor unitary executive executive power Federal Reserve independence Lisa Cook Jerome Powell Rebecca Slaughter Alvaro Bedoya