Supreme Court signals it will back Trump’s firing of independent federal agency board members
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling appears poised to broaden the President’s authority over independent federal agencies, aligning with President Donald Trump’s recent dismissal of several board members. By hinting at a reversal of the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision—or at least stripping it down to a skeletal framework—the Court’s conservative panel signaled a willingness to ease the longstanding restrictions that have governed presidential firings of agency commissioners.
Chief Justice John Roberts called the old ruling “a dry husk,” underscoring his view that the precedent no longer serves a useful purpose. This sentiment follows a string of opinions Roberts has authored over the past decade that steadily eroded statutory limits on executive removal power. In 2020, for instance, he upheld Trump’s termination of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief, citing that the president’s removal authority is the rule rather than the exception. More recently, he treated the president’s prerogative to fire as an “inconclusive and preclusive” power that Congress cannot curtail, a stance reiterated in the 2024 decision that shielded Trump from prosecution for his attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
The current case centers on the removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was dismissed without cause. Lawyers for the administration argue that the Court should discard the entire Humphrey’s Executor ruling. Meanwhile, three other agencies— the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—have seen their board members ousted by Trump, further illustrating the administration’s aggressive use of executive authority.
Only a handful of officials have resisted Trump’s removal attempts. Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Library of Congress copyright official Shira Perlmutter have remained in place, with the Court reportedly treating the Fed differently from other independent bodies. Cook has denied any wrongdoing, though Trump has expressed a desire to see her out over mortgage‑fraud allegations. A separate issue in the Slaughter case may ultimately influence Cook’s status: if the Court rules her dismissal unlawful, it will still need to decide whether judges can order her reinstatement—a question that could shape the future of the Fed’s leadership.
Justice Neil Gorsuch previously noted that employees favored in court may receive back pay but not necessarily reinstatement. Whether Cook will stay on her post hinges on this legal gray area, and the Court has scheduled a hearing in January to address the matter as her challenge proceeds. The Court’s tentative stance reflects a broader unease about the economic fallout that could result from Trump’s capacity to depose central bank leaders.
Historically, the Humphrey’s Executor case originated in 1935 when William Humphrey defied President Franklin Roosevelt’s request to resign as FTC chief. After Humphrey’s death, his legal representative (the executor) sued for unpaid compensation, prompting the Court to uphold a statute limiting presidential removal to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This decision has since become a cornerstone of agency independence, a legacy that the present ruling threatens to alter.
Stay informed on all the latest news, real-time breaking news updates, and follow all the important headlines in world News on Latest NewsX. Follow us on social media Facebook, Twitter(X), Gettr and subscribe our Youtube Channel.
