The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is poised to dramatically expand presidential power by backing President Trump’s firing of an FTC commissioner, potentially overturning a 90-year-old precedent that protects independent agencies from political interference.
Story Highlights
- Conservative justices signaled support for Trump’s unprecedented firing of Democrat FTC member Rebecca Slaughter before her term expired
- The Court appears ready to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor precedent that limits presidential removal powers over independent agencies
- Chief Justice Roberts dismissed the landmark precedent as “just a dried husk,” suggesting it’s outdated given today’s powerful federal agencies
- Liberal justices warned the ruling would give presidents “massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power” over executive branch operations
Supreme Court Signals Historic Shift on Presidential Authority
Conservative justices dominated Monday’s oral arguments in the Justice Department’s appeal challenging lower court rulings that blocked Trump’s March 2025 dismissal of Democrat FTC member Rebecca Slaughter. The 6-3 conservative majority court has consistently backed Trump since his return to the presidency in January.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, calling it an “indefensible outlier” that creates a “headless fourth branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control.”
CNN: Supreme Court appears ready to side with Trump on power to fire independent regulators pic.twitter.com/4fFkppEjdq
— OSZ (@OpenSourceZone) December 8, 2025
Roberts Dismisses 1935 Precedent as Obsolete
Chief Justice Roberts delivered perhaps the most telling moment when he characterized the Humphrey’s Executor ruling as “just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.” Roberts argued that the FTC addressed in that 1935 case “had very little, if any, executive power” compared to today’s expansive federal agencies.
The precedent originally rebuffed Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt’s attempt to fire an FTC member over policy differences. Roberts’s comments suggest the Court views constitutional separation of powers differently when agencies wield significant regulatory authority over American businesses and consumers.
Liberal Justices Sound Alarm Over Unchecked Power
Justice Elena Kagan warned that Trump’s position would give presidents “massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power” extending beyond traditional execution into lawmaking through regulatory frameworks.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that allowing presidents to “fire all the scientists, and the doctors, and the economists and the PhDs, and replacing them with loyalists” undermines expert governance that Congress designed to benefit citizens.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged the administration’s “unitary executive” theory by noting that even English monarchs at America’s founding lacked “unqualified removal power” over government officials.
Constitutional Stakes and Broader Implications
The case represents Trump’s broader effort to restore constitutional executive authority after decades of congressional encroachment through independent agency protections. Currently, a 1914 law restricts presidential removal of FTC commissioners to causes like inefficiency or malfeasance, not policy disagreements.
Similar protections cover officials at over two dozen agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board.
Sauer argued that presidents must have control over the executive branch as constitutionally mandated, while opponents claim this destroys the careful balance Congress created to ensure nonpartisan expertise in specialized areas.
Federal Reserve Independence Also at Risk
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s questions about distinguishing the Federal Reserve from the FTC revealed broader concerns about central bank independence.
The Court will hear arguments on January 21 regarding Trump’s unprecedented attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a move that would challenge decades of monetary policy independence.
These cases collectively represent the most significant test of presidential removal powers in modern history.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected by June 2026, could fundamentally reshape the relationship between presidents and the sprawling federal bureaucracy that conservatives have long viewed as an unconstitutional “fourth branch” of government.
