NextFin News - The U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a landmark case that could significantly expand the scope of presidential power regarding the removal of officials leading independent federal agencies. The case centers on former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was removed by U.S. President Donald Trump in March 2025, with Trump asserting her "continued service ... is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities." Under current law, FTC commissioners are protected from removal except for specific causes such as inefficiency or malfeasance, a protection rooted in the 1935 Supreme Court ruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States which limits presidential removal power to promote agency independence.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, influenced by Chief Justice John Roberts, is reexamining and potentially undermining this nearly century-old precedent. Roberts and conservative justices have argued in prior cases that such limits on removal authority conflict with the constitutional principle that the president must be held accountable for the actions of the executive branch. This stance aligns with the so-called "unitary executive theory," which holds that the president should have broad authority to control executive agencies, including the ability to dismiss their leaders at will.
The argumentation has pitted Roberts against liberal justices like Elena Kagan, who defend the constitutional role of independent agencies as checks against unchecked executive power. Kagan highlights the importance of preserving separation of powers and congressional intent to protect regulatory independence on policy and enforcement decisions. The issue has gained urgency amid U.S. President Trump’s broader efforts to remove multiple officials from various federal agencies, including the FTC, National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Reserve, to align regulatory priorities with his administration’s agenda.
This case comes in the broader context of the Roberts Court’s recent jurisprudence favoring expanded executive authority. Prior rulings have eroded legal barriers, such as expanding presidential immunity from prosecution and limiting judicial interventions against administration policy implementations. The removal power case before the court will have widespread impacts not only on the FTC but also on the structural independence of agencies overseeing sectors like finance, labor, environment, and public safety.
From an analytical perspective, this legal shift reflects a long-standing conservative judicial philosophy dating back to the Reagan era, emphasizing centralized executive control to enhance presidential accountability and effectiveness. This is motivated by concerns that limiting presidential dismissal authority could dilute responsibility and hinder decisive government action. Chief Justice Roberts’ prior opinions, including the pivotal 2010 Free Enterprise Fund decision and the 2020 Seila Law case, reinforce this trajectory by invalidating "for cause" removal protections as unconstitutional constraints.
Quantitatively, the implications for regulatory agencies are profound. Independent agencies have historically wielded substantial influence over multi-trillion-dollar economic sectors. For example, the Federal Reserve’s policymaking impacts the U.S. economy’s $25 trillion GDP, while the FTC oversees antitrust and consumer protection in markets worth billions. Removing restrictions on presidential firing powers could lead to heightened political interference, affecting regulatory stability and investor confidence.
Looking forward, if the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the U.S. President will gain unprecedented authority to unilaterally remove officials without congressional oversight, thus consolidating executive power. This threatens to accelerate a shift away from the system of checks and balances that anchors American governance. Economically, markets may face uncertainty as investor and corporate actors reassess regulatory risks linked to increased politicization of independent agencies.
In response, congressional actors may seek legislative remedies or oversight mechanisms to restore some degree of agency insulation and preserve functional regulatory autonomy. Legal scholars and historians have underscored the nuanced constitutional text and historical context surrounding removal powers, suggesting that the Court’s expansionist approach may face future scrutiny and pushback.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s impending ruling marks a critical juncture in the balance of executive and legislative powers. Under the leadership of U.S. President Trump and Chief Justice Roberts, the judiciary is advancing a vision of a stronger presidency with enhanced control over the federal bureaucracy. While proponents argue this increases accountability and government responsiveness, critics caution it risks undermining independent regulation essential to safeguarding public interests and maintaining economic stability.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
