For over a century, independent government agencies have played a crucial role in regulating various aspects of American life, including monetary policy, stock trades, and consumer product safety. These agencies have operated free from direct political interference and oversight by the White House, a tradition that may soon be challenged by a significant case currently before the Supreme Court. This case has the potential to drastically alter the structure of the federal government, undermining the bipartisanship and policy continuity that Congress aimed to establish when creating these agencies.
The central issue involves President Donald Trump's attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, from her position on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Trump claims her service does not align with his administration's priorities. Appointed in 2023 for a seven-year term, Slaughter's termination has been deemed illegal by lower courts, which emphasize that federal law only permits the president to remove a commissioner for reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. This legal framework is designed to protect the FTC from political interference.
Trump argues that the arrangement is unconstitutional, asserting that a president should maintain full control over the leadership of government agencies responsible for policy and regulation. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it could grant presidents the authority to dismiss members of independent agencies at will, fundamentally undermining their independence. As Slaughter stated in an interview with ABC News, Congress intentionally designed agencies like the FTC, Federal Reserve, and Securities and Exchange Commission to ensure bipartisan accountability and transparency.
In addition to the FTC, Trump has attempted to remove members from other independent bodies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. These actions have led to legal challenges from various agency members, who argue that their removals are politically motivated. Trump's legal team cites Article II of the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president and mandates that he ensure laws are faithfully executed. They contend that this language inherently includes the right to remove appointed executive officers.
In a unanimous ruling in 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the design of independent agencies, affirming their quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial roles, which protect them from the president's whims. However, several current justices have hinted at the possibility of overturning this precedent. Legal experts, such as Sarah Isgur from SCOTUSblog, suggest that the Court may grant the president greater control over independent agencies, potentially redefining the balance of power within the executive branch.
The potential implications for the public are significant. Legal analysts warn that a ruling in favor of Trump could lead to changes in how agencies conduct investigations, enforce regulations, and oversee markets. This shift may introduce uncertainty into regulatory oversight, which could impact investment decisions and long-term planning for businesses and consumers alike. By giving the president full control over independent agency leadership, the administration's agenda could become closely aligned with agency actions, amplifying the power of the executive branch.
As it stands, the FTC currently has no Democratic members following Trump's dismissal of Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner Alvaro Bedoya earlier this year. In September, the Supreme Court denied Slaughter's request to remain on the commission while litigation is ongoing. This 6-3 decision, with dissent from all three liberal justices, suggests an inclination toward a ruling favorable to Trump.
The Supreme Court's ruling will also impact the fates of other dismissed agency members, including Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, both contesting their removals on similar grounds to Slaughter's case. Notably, the Federal Reserve is not directly implicated in this case, as its structure is considered unique. The Supreme Court has previously acknowledged the Federal Reserve's distinct role, which follows the historical precedents of the First and Second Banks of the United States.
Trump's attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, is set to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a separate case next month. A decision in both cases is expected before the end of the court's term in June 2026, and the outcomes could have lasting effects on the independence of federal agencies and the overall structure of American governance.