Supreme Court Poised to Expand Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies

The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to significantly expand presidential authority, signaling a likely ruling that would grant the President greater power to dismiss leaders of independent federal agencies. This potential decision, emerging from oral arguments heard on Monday, December 8, 2025, could fundamentally alter the balance of power between the executive branch and regulatory bodies, according to reports from The Washington Post and Bloomberg Law News.

bloomberglaw.com reported, At the heart of the matter is the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which challenges the President's ability to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), without cause. The Trump administration argues that the President should have unfettered control over officials wielding executive power, as reported by The Guardian.

The Court's conservative majority expressed skepticism regarding the long-standing protections for independent agency heads, suggesting a willingness to overturn or severely limit a 90-year-old precedent. This precedent, established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States , has historically shielded such officials from at-will presidential removal, as noted by E&E News by POLITICO.

washingtonpost.com noted, Liberal justices, including Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, voiced strong concerns about the implications of such a ruling. Justice Kagan warned that overturning the precedent would grant the President "massive, uncontrolled and unchecked power," according to Bloomberg Law News.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the 1935 precedent was "grievously wrong" and an "indefensible outlier" that must be overruled. He asserted that the President's power to remove officers wielding executive power is "conclusive and preclusive," as reported by Mother Jones.

theguardian.com reported, A ruling in favor of the President would represent a historic shift in the federal government, potentially moving away from bipartisan experts and toward increased partisan control by the executive branch, according to an analysis by The Toledo Blade. This outcome has been widely anticipated by legal experts, who have observed the justices chipping away at the Humphrey's Executor precedent for years, The Washington Post stated.

The decision could impact numerous independent agencies, including those overseeing labor relations, consumer product safety, and financial markets, potentially allowing a president to "clean house" with each new administration, Justice Jackson cautioned, as reported by E&E News by POLITICO.

• bloomberglaw.com noted, Background of the Case and Precedent: The current legal battle stems from President Trump's attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission in March, despite the FTC Act stipulating that commissioners can only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office," according to Mother Jones. This directly challenges the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which upheld Congress's authority to protect independent agency heads from arbitrary presidential dismissals, as detailed by Epic.org.

• The Unitary Executive Theory: The Trump administration's argument is largely rooted in the unitary executive theory, a conservative legal doctrine asserting that Article II of the Constitution grants the President sole and comprehensive authority over the entire executive branch, including the power to remove officials at will, as explained by The Federalist Society and Mother Jones. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that this theory necessitates the President's ability to dismiss executive branch officials for any reason to fulfill constitutional duties, according to Wyoming Public Media.

• washingtonpost.com reported, Prior Supreme Court Rulings: The Roberts Court has consistently narrowed the scope of removal protections for agency heads over the past 15 years, as noted by SCOTUSblog. A significant precedent was set in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , where the Court ruled that the "for cause" removal restriction for the single director of the CFPB was unconstitutional, making the director subject to at-will presidential removal, according to the University of Chicago Law Review. However, that decision explicitly distinguished multi-member boards like the FTC, which are now at the center of the current case, Bloomberg Law News reported.

• Concerns from Liberal Justices: Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson expressed profound alarm during oral arguments, warning that a decision favoring the administration could "destroy the structure of government" and lead to a president having "control over everything, including over much of the lawmaking in this country," as reported by Mother Jones and E&E News by POLITICO. Justice Jackson specifically highlighted the risk of politicizing agencies by allowing a president to fire experts and replace them with loyalists, which she argued is not in the best interest of citizens, according to The Washington Post.

• theguardian.com noted, Implications for Agency Independence and Function: Overturning Humphrey's Executor could undermine the non-partisan, expert-driven nature of numerous independent agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, E&E News by POLITICO stated. Critics argue that this would allow a president to coerce agencies into adopting preferred rules or policies, potentially impacting areas from consumer protection to financial markets and environmental regulation, as highlighted by Epic.org.

• Potential Future Developments: While the Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected by the end of June, the justices have already allowed President Trump to fire officials from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) in interim rulings, even while legal challenges proceed, The Washington Post reported. The Court is also scheduled to hear arguments in January regarding Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that could challenge the central bank's independence, The Guardian noted.

• bloomberglaw.com reported, The "Dried Husk" Argument: Chief Justice John Roberts referred to the Humphrey's Executor precedent as a "dried husk" during arguments, suggesting that the contemporary FTC, which now exercises significant executive powers, bears little resemblance to the agency that existed in 1935, according to The Washington Post. This perspective aligns with the view that independent agencies have evolved to wield more executive power, thus warranting greater presidential control, as argued by Solicitor General Sauer, Bloomberg Law News reported.