WASHINGTON, D.C. — December 2025 — The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a case with far-reaching implications for the structure of the federal government and the balance of power between the presidency and independent agencies. The dispute, Trump v. Slaughter, centers on whether a president may remove certain agency commissioners before the end of their terms — a question that could recalibrate nearly a century of administrative law.
At issue is President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter prior to the expiration of her statutory term. Slaughter challenged the removal, arguing that long-standing precedent protects commissioners of independent agencies from at-will dismissal. The case now presents the Court with an opportunity to revisit — and possibly narrow — a foundational 1935 decision that has shaped the modern administrative state.
WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT
Independent federal agencies such as the FTC are structured differently from executive departments. Their leaders typically serve fixed terms and may be removed only “for cause,” a design intended to insulate regulators from political pressure and ensure continuity across administrations.
The legal question in Trump v. Slaughter is whether those protections remain constitutionally sound when agencies exercise significant executive authority. The president’s position argues that accountability to the elected executive is essential, particularly where agencies perform functions that resemble core executive power.
WHY HUMPHREY’S EXECUTOR MATTERS
The case turns on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), a Supreme Court precedent that limited the president’s ability to remove commissioners of certain independent agencies without cause. The decision drew a distinction between purely executive officers and officials performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions.
For decades, Humphrey’s Executor has underpinned the independence of agencies like the FTC, SEC, and others. Critics argue that the administrative landscape has changed dramatically since 1935, with agencies now wielding expansive regulatory and enforcement authority that directly affects the economy and daily life.
Supporters of revisiting the precedent contend that modern agencies are more executive in nature and should therefore be subject to greater presidential control.
SIGNALS FROM THE JUSTICES
During oral arguments, several justices questioned whether the rationale of Humphrey’s Executor fits the contemporary administrative state. While no outcome has been decided, the Court’s conservative majority appeared interested in clarifying — and potentially narrowing — the scope of removal protections.
Key themes raised during questioning included:
– whether independent agencies exercise executive power that requires presidential oversight
– how removal protections affect democratic accountability
– whether Congress may insulate officials from removal without undermining Article II of the Constitution
– how to reconcile agency independence with separation-of-powers principles
Legal observers caution that questions during argument do not guarantee a particular result, but they do suggest the Court is seriously considering changes to existing doctrine.
ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES
Arguments favoring expanded presidential removal power emphasize accountability. Proponents argue that voters elect a president to execute the law, and that insulating powerful regulators from removal dilutes democratic control. They also contend that agency independence can reduce transparency and responsiveness.
Arguments defending independent agencies stress stability and expertise. Supporters of the current framework warn that at-will removal could politicize regulation, undermine long-term planning, and expose enforcement decisions to partisan pressure.
Both sides agree that the stakes extend well beyond one commissioner or one agency.
WHAT A RULING COULD CHANGE
If the Court narrows or overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the effects could be substantial:
– presidents may gain greater authority to remove commissioners at independent agencies
– Congress may need to revisit statutory protections governing agency leadership
– ongoing and past agency actions could face new legal challenges
– the balance between independence and accountability in federal regulation could shift
Alternatively, the Court could issue a limited ruling that preserves agency independence while clarifying the circumstances under which removal is permissible.
WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE PUBLIC
Independent agencies regulate competition, financial markets, consumer protection, labor relations, and more. Changes to how their leaders are appointed and removed can influence how regulations are made, enforced, and reviewed.
For supporters of stronger executive control, the case represents a chance to align regulatory power more closely with electoral outcomes. For defenders of the administrative framework, it raises concerns about concentrating authority in the presidency.
THE ROAD AHEAD
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision later in the term. Until then, uncertainty will continue across Washington, as agencies, lawmakers, and regulated industries assess how potential outcomes could affect governance.
Regardless of the ruling, Trump v. Slaughter underscores a broader constitutional debate that has intensified in recent years: how to balance independence, expertise, and democratic accountability in a federal system built for a very different era.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Trump v. Slaughter places a decades-old precedent under renewed scrutiny and could redefine the relationship between the president and independent federal agencies. The Court has not yet ruled, but the case highlights a pivotal moment in administrative law — one that may shape how power is exercised in Washington for years to come.