Overview
In 2025, President Donald Trump launched an aggressive campaign to assert sweeping authority over independent federal agencies, testing the long‑standing 1935 Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that limited presidential power to fire members of multi‑member regulatory commissions. After the Supreme Court used its emergency docket to let Trump remove Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the conflict escalated when Trump fired Democratic Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March 2025 and later attempted to oust Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, both before their fixed terms expired.
On December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court heard full arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a direct challenge to Humphrey’s Executor and to statutory protections that allow FTC commissioners to be removed only for cause. The Court’s conservative majority signaled openness to expanding presidential removal power, while liberal justices warned that dismantling agency independence would erode checks and balances and politicize expert regulators. A ruling expected by June 2026 will determine not only Slaughter’s fate but the degree of presidential control over dozens of independent boards—and may shape a parallel fight over Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, with profound implications for the balance of power in the modern administrative state.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Supreme Court is the nation’s highest judicial body, currently composed of a 6–3 conservative majority. It has become the central arena for debates over the constitutional status of independent regulatory agencies and the scope of presidential control.
The FTC is an independent agency charged with enforcing antitrust and consumer‑protection laws, historically structured as a five‑member bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and may be removed only for cause.
The Federal Reserve Board is the governing body of the U.S. central bank, whose members serve staggered 14‑year terms and can be removed by the president only for cause under the Federal Reserve Act.
The CPSC is an independent agency responsible for protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products, traditionally structured as a five‑member commission with for‑cause removal protections and bipartisan balance requirements.
Timeline
-
Supreme Court hears Trump v. Slaughter and signals readiness to expand removal power
Supreme Court RulingThe Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and the validity of Humphrey’s Executor. Conservative justices appear inclined to broaden presidential removal power over independent‑agency board members, while liberals warn of unchecked executive authority and threats to agencies like the Federal Reserve.
-
Supreme Court schedules and previews arguments in Trump v. Slaughter
Legal ActionAhead of oral arguments, the Court sets an expedited schedule to consider whether Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter was lawful and whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled or narrowed, with analysts highlighting potential impacts on dozens of independent agencies and the pending Lisa Cook case.
-
Supreme Court lets Trump fire FTC’s Slaughter for now and grants full review
Supreme Court RulingIn a 6–3 order, the Supreme Court stays lower‑court rulings that had reinstated Rebecca Slaughter, allowing Trump’s firing to take effect while agreeing to hear the case on the merits in December 2025. The three liberal justices dissent.
-
Justice Department asks Supreme Court to allow firing of Fed governor Lisa Cook
Legal ActionSolicitor General D. John Sauer files an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to lift lower‑court orders that blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook, tying the case to broader claims about presidential removal power.
-
Chief Justice Roberts administratively pauses Slaughter’s return to FTC
Supreme Court RulingChief Justice Roberts issues an administrative stay of Judge AliKhan’s order, temporarily keeping Slaughter off the commission while the full Court considers the government’s emergency application.
-
Trump asks Supreme Court to stay rulings and let him fire FTC commissioner Slaughter
Legal ActionThe Trump administration petitions the Supreme Court to pause lower‑court decisions reinstating Rebecca Slaughter and to recognize broad presidential authority to remove FTC commissioners, previewing arguments to overturn Humphrey’s Executor.
-
D.C. Circuit affirms Slaughter reinstatement; Judge Rao dissents
Court RulingA D.C. Circuit panel upholds the district court’s order reinstating Slaughter, rejecting Trump’s arguments that Humphrey’s Executor no longer controls. Judge Neomi Rao dissents, questioning courts’ power to reinstate officers fired by the president.
-
D.C. district judge rules Slaughter’s firing unlawful
Court RulingJudge Loren AliKhan holds that Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter violates the FTC Act’s for‑cause removal standard and entrenched Supreme Court precedent. She orders her reinstatement and enjoins interference with her duties.
-
Slaughter and Bedoya sue Trump over FTC firings
Legal ActionRebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya file suit in federal court in Washington, D.C., arguing that their removals violated the FTC Act and Supreme Court precedent requiring for‑cause justification to fire commissioners.
-
Trump fires Democratic FTC commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya
Presidential ActionPresident Trump removes two Democratic members of the five‑member FTC without stating cause, seeking to flip the commission’s partisan balance and directly challenge statutory removal protections.
-
Supreme Court stays CPSC reinstatement and backs Trump on product safety firings
Supreme Court RulingThe Supreme Court, over a dissent by its three liberal justices, stays Judge Maddox’s order and allows Trump’s removal of the three Democratic CPSC commissioners to stand, citing its earlier NLRB/MSPB decision as controlling.
-
District court reinstates fired CPSC commissioners
Court RulingJudge Matthew Maddox rules that Trump unlawfully removed three CPSC commissioners, orders their reinstatement, and highlights the commission’s independent role and reliance on Humphrey’s Executor.
-
Trump fires three Democratic Consumer Product Safety Commission members
Presidential ActionPresident Trump removes Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn‑Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr. from the CPSC, despite statutory protections allowing removal only for neglect of duty or malfeasance, as part of a broader effort to reshape independent agencies.
-
Supreme Court allows Trump to remove NLRB and MSPB members via emergency order
Supreme Court RulingIn an unsigned 6–3 order on its emergency docket, the Supreme Court stays lower‑court decisions that had reinstated Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board, enabling Trump’s firings to stand while litigation continues and signaling skepticism toward Humphrey’s Executor.
-
First major firing fight: attempt to remove Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger
Legal ActionA D.C. district judge issues a temporary restraining order blocking the without‑cause firing of Hampton Dellinger from the Office of Special Counsel, marking the first notable 2025 clash over Trump’s removal of an official at a statutorily independent body.
-
Seila Law narrows Humphrey’s Executor and expands presidential control over CFPB
Supreme Court RulingIn Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, the Supreme Court holds 5–4 that the CFPB’s single director cannot be shielded from at‑will presidential removal, while leaving in place narrow exceptions for certain multi‑member commissions patterned on the 1935 FTC.
-
Humphrey’s Executor affirms limits on presidential removal of FTC commissioners
Historical PrecedentThe Supreme Court unanimously rules in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that Congress may restrict the president’s power to remove members of quasi‑judicial and quasi‑legislative independent agencies like the FTC, allowing removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
Scenarios
Humphrey’s Executor is overturned and presidents gain at‑will removal power over most independent boards
Discussed by: Conservative legal scholars, some business groups, and analysis in Reuters, AP, and Axios coverage of the Dec. 8 arguments
In this scenario, the Supreme Court holds that multi‑member commissions exercising significant executive power, such as the FTC, NLRB, MSPB, CPSC and similar bodies, cannot be shielded from at‑will presidential removal. Humphrey’s Executor is formally overruled or reduced to a narrow historical relic. Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter is affirmed, and future presidents may freely remove commissioners for any reason. The Court may carve out a limited exception for the Federal Reserve or other uniquely structured institutions, but most so‑called independent agencies become, in effect, extensions of the executive branch. This would dramatically increase presidential leverage over economic and regulatory policy and would likely spur major legislative and litigation battles over how agencies are structured and how their decisions can be challenged.
Court narrows Humphrey’s Executor, upholds Trump’s firing, but preserves some independence and a stronger carve‑out for the Fed
Discussed by: Institutionalist conservatives, some court‑watchers in mainstream legal media, and analysts emphasizing Roberts’s incrementalism
Here the Court concludes that the modern FTC and similar commissions exercise predominantly executive power and thus fall outside Humphrey’s original logic. It strikes down statutory for‑cause removal protections for commissioners at those agencies and upholds Trump’s firing of Slaughter, but does not formally overrule Humphrey’s Executor. Instead, it recasts the precedent as applying only to bodies that are genuinely quasi‑judicial or quasi‑legislative with minimal enforcement authority. At the same time, the Court signals—or later holds in the Lisa Cook case—that the Federal Reserve remains in a special category where for‑cause protections are permissible, citing monetary‑policy independence and financial‑stability concerns. This “narrow‑but‑not‑overrule” ruling would still significantly expand presidential removal power while trying to contain market and institutional backlash.
Mixed ruling: Trump wins on removal but courts’ remedial power is sharply limited
Discussed by: Appellate commentators focused on Judge Rao’s opinions and remedial questions raised in AP and Reuters reports
Another plausible outcome is that the Court sidesteps the full scope of Humphrey’s Executor but restricts what lower courts can do when they find removals unlawful. It could hold that even if a statute requires cause, courts generally cannot order reinstatement of an ousted officer; at most, they can award back pay or declaratory relief. Under this approach, Trump’s firing of Slaughter might be deemed either lawful or moot in practical terms, and future presidents could still achieve their personnel goals, knowing that the worst consequence is financial liability. Such a ruling would weaken the bite of tenure protections, reduce the judiciary’s role as a check on politicized firings, and encourage more aggressive presidential management of independent bodies.
Court unexpectedly reaffirms Humphrey’s Executor and curbs Trump’s removal campaign
Discussed by: Liberal legal scholars, some former regulators, and commentators emphasizing institutional stability and congressional prerogatives
In a less likely but still conceivable scenario, the Court, perhaps in a fragmented opinion, concludes that upending 90 years of administrative structure would be too destabilizing. It reaffirms Humphrey’s Executor, upholds statutory for‑cause protection for FTC commissioners, and rules Trump’s firing of Slaughter unlawful, possibly ordering reinstatement or equivalent relief. Such a decision would sharply rebuke the unitary‑executive theory as applied to independent commissions and could constrain Trump’s ongoing efforts to purge other boards, including the CPSC and NLRB. It would also strengthen Lisa Cook’s case, making it far harder for Trump or future presidents to remove Fed governors absent clear, documented misconduct. However, given the 6–3 conservative majority’s recent trajectory, this scenario is widely viewed as unlikely.
Protracted fragmentation: narrow decision on Slaughter, continued uncertainty for the Federal Reserve and other agencies
Discussed by: Court‑watchers worried about incrementalism and the shadow docket, including analysis in Business Insider and legal blogs
The Court could issue a narrow ruling focused on the specific language of the FTC Act or procedural issues, avoiding a clean answer on Humphrey’s Executor. It might decide that the FTC as currently structured fits within or outside existing exceptions without fully clarifying the test for other commissions, or split on different rationales in multiple opinions. Meanwhile, the Court could delay or deny full review in Lisa Cook’s case, leaving lower courts to guess how far the new doctrine extends to the Fed and other boards. This would prolong uncertainty for agency officials, regulated industries, and markets, with presidents testing the limits via additional firings and courts struggling to apply a muddled separation‑of‑powers framework.
Historical Context
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (FTC independence)
1933–1935What Happened
After President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire FTC commissioner William Humphrey for policy disagreements, Humphrey’s estate sued for back pay, arguing the firing violated the Federal Trade Commission Act’s for‑cause removal clause. In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could limit the president’s power to remove commissioners of an independent, quasi‑legislative and quasi‑judicial agency like the FTC, cementing the constitutionality of independent agencies.
Outcome
Short term: Humphrey’s estate recovered unpaid salary, and Roosevelt’s attempt to remove the commissioner for policy reasons was declared unlawful.
Long term: Humphrey’s Executor became the bedrock precedent justifying for‑cause removal protections at many independent agencies, shaping the structure of the modern administrative state for 90 years until the Roberts Court began aggressively revisiting its scope.
Why It's Relevant
Trump v. Slaughter directly targets Humphrey’s Executor, effectively asking whether that New Deal‑era compromise between presidential control and agency independence should survive in the 21st century. The case’s facts—a president firing an FTC commissioner for policy reasons despite a for‑cause statute—closely parallel Roosevelt’s dispute with Humphrey, making the current litigation a near‑mirror test for whether the Court will preserve or discard its own landmark precedent.
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (single‑director agency limits)
2017–2020What Happened
A law firm challenged the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, arguing that its single director, protected from at‑will removal by the president, violated separation of powers. In 2020, the Supreme Court agreed, holding that the CFPB’s design was unconstitutional because it vested significant executive authority in a single official not answerable to the president, though it severed the removal protection rather than dismantling the agency.
Outcome
Short term: The CFPB director became removable at will, giving the president greater control over consumer‑finance enforcement while preserving the rest of the agency’s powers.
Long term: Seila Law created a new test that treats “quasi‑legislative/quasi‑judicial” multi‑member commissions as possible exceptions to at‑will removal but views most powerful executive officials as subject to full presidential control, setting the doctrinal stage for the 2025 challenges to multi‑member independent boards.
Why It's Relevant
Seila Law shows the Court’s willingness to recalibrate long‑standing agency structures in favor of presidential control while avoiding total institutional collapse. It also limited Humphrey’s Executor to a narrow set of circumstances, which Trump and his Solicitor General now argue do not cover modern commissions like the FTC. The Slaughter and Cook cases test whether that logic will be extended from single‑director agencies to multi‑member boards.
Morrison v. Olson (independent counsel and removal restrictions)
1978–1988What Happened
In the wake of Watergate, Congress created an independent counsel mechanism to investigate senior officials, with the counsel removable by the attorney general only for good cause. In 1988, the Supreme Court upheld the statute in Morrison v. Olson, ruling that such removal limits did not unduly interfere with the president’s ability to execute the laws, over a lone but influential dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia arguing for a stronger unitary executive.
Outcome
Short term: The independent counsel law survived, and investigations of executive‑branch officials proceeded under a structure insulated from direct presidential control.
Long term: Although the independent counsel statute later lapsed and Morrison has been increasingly questioned, the decision long stood as a high‑water mark for tolerating removal restrictions. The Roberts Court has since distanced itself from Morrison, and Scalia’s once‑minority unitary‑executive view has gained traction.
Why It's Relevant
Morrison underscores that for decades the Court accepted significant constraints on presidential removal power when Congress sought to protect investigative or quasi‑judicial functions. Today’s challenges to Humphrey’s Executor and agency independence reflect a reversal of that trajectory: a Court more sympathetic to Scalia’s Morrison dissent now weighs whether to curtail or abandon the older approach that permitted robust statutory protections for certain officers.