The U.S. Supreme Court last week significantly expanded presidential authority over the executive branch, ruling 6-3 that presidents may remove officials from independent federal agencies without the firing protections that had been recognized for decades.
The decision gives President Donald Trump the authority to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee whose case became a central test of the administration’s effort to broaden presidential removal powers.
Advertisement
In doing so, the Court overturned its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ending a longstanding precedent that allowed Congress to provide certain executive branch officials with protections from at-will removal.
The ruling is expected to have broad implications for independent agencies that oversee areas including labor relations, federal employment, workplace discrimination, consumer protection, aviation safety and financial regulation, The Hill noted.
Advertisement
In an analysis of the ruling, commentator Ben Dyke called it a “bombshell,” adding, “This is historic.”
He also indicated that the majority of justices were correct in returning constitutional power to the president, who is the head of the Executive Branch and should not be impeded by the Legislative Branch from exercising his authorities.
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the ruling.
Beyond the Federal Trade Commission, the ruling is expected to affect roughly two dozen multimember independent agencies across the federal government, giving presidents broader authority to replace commissioners and board members with appointees who align with their policy priorities.
“The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent, joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, per The Hill.
“It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him,” their dissent continued.
“In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty,” the dissent continued.
But the dissent is at odds with the plain language of the Constitution.
As Dyke pointed out, Article II begins with this sentence: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
That, he says, makes clear that the founders intended for the president alone to make all decisions regarding Executive Branch authorities, not the heads of Executive Branch offices established by Congress, many of whom may not share the president’s policy preferences and could slow-walk or even ignore his orders.
For her part, Sotomayor read her dissent aloud from the bench, a practice justices use when they want to emphasize their strong disagreements with a case.
For years, conservative legal scholars and advocacy groups argued that the Humphrey’s Executor precedent improperly limited the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch and conflicted with the separation of powers.
In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority had already narrowed the scope of the 1935 ruling before formally overturning it.
Trump hailed the ruling in a Truth Social post.
“This Decision was long sought by United States Presidents, dating all the way back to the 1930s,” he wrote.
“It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he added.
After returning to the White House, Trump set the stage for the Supreme Court to revisit the precedent by dismissing the heads of several independent federal agencies despite statutory protections against removal.
Those officials generally prevailed in the lower courts, which remained bound by the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision.
The Supreme Court, however, has the authority to overturn or modify its own precedents, ultimately leading to the latest ruling.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
