In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and overruled the 91-year-old Humphrey’s Executor precedent, clearing the way for presidents to remove members of multimemb
On Thursday, the Supreme Court signaled that an era of limits on presidential control over so-called “independent” agencies is coming to an end.
In a 6-3 decision. the justices upheld President Trump’s March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. The case took aim at a 91-year-old rule that had restricted presidents from removing commissioners at will. and the court’s majority treated the ruling as a decisive break.
Congress created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 and. for decades. set terms for removal: commissioners could be fired only for “inefficiency. neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” Slaughter was not given any of those reasons. Instead, she was told her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”.
The decision lands after a lower court ruling last summer that had found the firing unlawful. That court pointed to the 1935 landmark case Humphrey’s Executor, brought after President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to remove an FTC commissioner over disagreements tied to the commissioner’s views. In that earlier case. the Supreme Court had drawn a line between certain offices that could be removed freely and others whose role was meant to be insulated from the political winds.
Writing for the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts said the president may not be forced to keep subordinates he cannot work with. “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work. neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. ” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”.
The three liberal justices dissented.
The court made the break unmistakable. In the majority opinion, Roberts wrote that if anything is “more left of Humphrey’s, the Court overrules it.”
That is why the ruling is being read as a final blow to the precedent that had shaped how Congress tried to preserve agency independence—especially at agencies built to make rules and adjudicate disputes without simply serving as extensions of the White House. The court had earlier described the Humphrey’s Executor framework as applying to certain kinds of agencies. In Thursday’s decision. the majority found reason to treat multimember agencies like the FTC differently from the narrower category the court had previously allowed.
During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court had already chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor. In that earlier case. the court allowed Trump to fire the head of another independent agency. the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The reasoning was tied to structure: the CFPB is run by a single director rather than a multimember board. Roberts had described Humphrey’s Executor as applying only to multimember agencies “that do not wield substantial executive power.”.
Now, with this latest ruling, the majority concluded that the president can reach inside the independence framework even where the agency is governed by commissioners.
The practical effect is sweeping for how the FTC is supposed to operate.
The ruling essentially turns FTC commissioners into at-will employees who serve at the pleasure of the president. It also effectively ends Congress’s requirement that the FTC be bipartisan. so that no single party holds too much influence. Congress dictated that no one political party can hold more than three seats on the five-member commission. a limit that reflected the FTC’s reach over the lives of everyday Americans.
FTC commissioners are antitrust experts, positioned to monitor companies across major sectors—big tech, pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers and media companies—aiming to ensure practices do not harm regular people.
Going forward, nothing in the ruling stops a president from removing commissioners from the opposing party and leaving seats vacant. Trump has already moved in that direction: after firing two Democratic FTC commissioners last year, the only remaining commissioners are Republicans.
Thursday’s decision doesn’t stop with the FTC.
The court’s reasoning also throws into question the protections afforded to members of multiple other federal agencies created under the Humphrey’s Executor framework—agencies Congress designed with the expectation of some independence. Those named in the reporting surrounding the decision include the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Like the FTC. they carry responsibilities that touch daily life: enforcing against discrimination and abuse on the job. and overseeing whether products are safe. including toys.
For Slaughter, the personal stakes were immediate. She was appointed in 2018 to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission and was fired by the Trump administration in 2024. In an interview last fall with NPR. she argued that independence matters because it allows decisions to be made on the merits.
“Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people,” Slaughter said. “That is what Americans deserve from their government.”
But not everyone agrees that the concept of independent agencies is real or constitutionally enforceable.
James M. Burnham. an attorney who has served in both Trump administrations. argued against the idea that Congress can constitutionally limit presidential removal powers. “I don’t think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government. ” Burnham said. “I don’t think they’ve ever been independent.”.
The court delivered a separate message about another major institution.
The independence of the Federal Reserve remains intact—for now. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court allowed Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, to remain in her job until litigation is resolved in lower courts.
In other words, the court drew a boundary line in this case—just not the one many expected for the FTC.
For Democrats and other critics, Thursday’s ruling is about what Congress tried to protect: bipartisan oversight, commissioners who can focus on enforcement and rulemaking without being treated as political placeholders, and insulation meant to keep agency decisions tied to the law and the facts.
For the Trump administration’s supporters, it is about accountability. In the majority’s framing, if commissioners exercise power on the public’s behalf, the president should be able to remove them when their presence conflicts with the administration’s priorities.
By overruling the leftover pieces of Humphrey’s Executor in a decision tied directly to the firing of Slaughter, the Supreme Court has moved that balance—quietly in the text, loudly in the consequences—toward wider presidential control over agencies once treated as a check on the White House.
Supreme Court Trump administration FTC Rebecca Kelly Slaughter Humphrey's Executor independent agencies presidential power Federal Reserve Lisa Cook antitrust bipartisan commission