A June 29 Supreme Court decision makes it easier for President Trump to remove leaders of independent agencies by overturning a 90-year-old precedent. Consumer advocates warn the change could weaken safeguards at agencies like the FTC and the Consumer Product
When the Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 29, it didn’t just settle a legal dispute. It shifted who holds the power to remove leaders of independent agencies—away from Congress and toward the president.
That change matters to consumers because the agencies affected enforce rules meant to stop fraud. protect competition. and reduce harm from unsafe products. The court upheld President Donald Trump’s March 2025 firing of a Democratic Federal Trade Commission member. and the decision could reshape how more than a dozen agencies operate.
The high court’s ruling took the power to fire leaders of independent agencies away from Congress and gave it to the president. Consumer advocates said the practical result could be a system where agencies built to stand apart from politics are instead pulled into it.
Emily Peterson-Cassin. director of competition and market fairness at the Consumer Federation of America. said the decision risks “turning independent consumer protection agencies into political pawns.” She added that when experts charged with policing fraud. protecting competition. and standing up to powerful corporations can be removed at will. “consumers lose an important safeguard against abuse.”.
Margot Cleveland, of counsel at the right-leaning NCLA, drew a different picture. She said the ruling in Slaughter is “a huge victory for our constitutional republic. ” pointing to the Court’s decision to overturn Humphrey’s Executor and return to a separation-of-powers framework. Cleveland said it ensures federal agencies remain answerable to the Executive—and to “the American people who elected the President.”.
The FTC decision sits at the center of the fight. In a 6-3 ruling that broke along ideological lines, the Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old precedent and said Congress’s limits on a president’s ability to remove Federal Trade Commission members encroached on presidential power.
The FTC enforces a range of antitrust and consumer protection laws affecting virtually every area of commerce. For Trump, the case was also personal in timing: after taking office again in 2025, he argued that all federal agencies were under his control.
In March 2025, Trump fired the two Democratic members of the five-member Federal Trade Commission board: Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Bedoya initially joined Slaughter’s legal challenge but later withdrew. On June 29. Bedoya called the Supreme Court “a billionaire’s fan club.” In his statement. he said the ruling would allow corporations to hurt people and deny people their day in court. adding: “The only people who will win from this ruling are the President’s billionaire golfing buddies. And at the Supreme Court, this is par for the course.”.
The decision the Court relied on was Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling that upheld removal restrictions for leaders of multimember administrative agencies. The Supreme Court has been chipping away at that precedent since 2010, and in this latest case it agreed to overturn it.
For some advocates, the consequences are already visible beyond the FTC—especially at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Courtney Griffin, director of consumer product safety at the Consumer Federation of America, said the firings of three U.S. CPSC commissioners in May 2025 likely will stay in place after the Supreme Court ruling. Griffin said it was the expectation of the organization that the CPSC removals “were going to be decided by this case. ” and that “those firings will stand because this (FTC) firing has stood.”.
Griffin also warned that the impact goes beyond one agency. “Today’s decision does more than undermine one agency. It completely reshapes our government, and that includes the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the watchdog that guards against dangerous products that injure and kill,” she said.
Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of the left-leaning CDT, echoed the concerns. She said Trump’s “administration has made no effort to hide its desire to use the levers of government authority to strongarm and intimidate political enemies. ” and that the Supreme Court “has taken down one of the key barriers stopping them.”.
White House officials, however, have offered a narrower view. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on May 9 that Trump could fire staffers who are part of the executive branch. saying: “He has the right to fire people within the executive branch. ” and “It’s a pretty simple answer.”.
The tension for consumers is straightforward: the FTC’s enforcement role reaches across commerce. and the CPSC’s mandate covers products that can injure and kill. With June 29’s ruling changing who can remove agency leadership. advocates fear the watchdog function could become more vulnerable to political pressure—even as supporters argue it restores the constitutional link between agencies and the president.
For now. the Court has already backed Trump’s approach once. by upholding his March 2025 firing of a Democratic FTC member. And in May 2025. Trump also tried to remove three Democrats among the five CPSC commissioners—an effort that. according to CFA. is likely to remain intact after the Supreme Court’s decision.
Supreme Court President Trump independent agencies Federal Trade Commission FTC Consumer Product Safety Commission CPSC Humphrey's Executor Slaughter consumer protection antitrust separation of powers