Chief Justice John Roberts's majority opinion, issued Thursday, overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 precedent that allowed Congress to restrict presidential removal of commissioners at independent agencies to cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" [1]. The Federal Trade Commission has operated under that standard since 1914. It no longer does [2].
The 6-3 ruling came in response to President Trump's March 2025 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who was told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities" [1]. A lower court found the removal unlawful under Humphrey's Executor [1]. The Supreme Court reversed, eliminating the legal framework that has governed independent agencies for nine decades [1].
Statutory language that no longer binds
The FTC's enabling statute specifies five bipartisan commissioners, no more than three from the same party, removable only for the causes Congress enumerated in 1914 [1]. That removal restriction is now unenforceable [1]. The bipartisan composition requirement remains in the statute, but commissioners serve at the president's pleasure [1].
The FTC enforces approximately 80 statutes covering nearly every facet of the economy [1]. Those enforcement priorities now answer directly to the White House [1]. The agency's mandate includes consumer protection cases, from data privacy violations to deceptive advertising, and antitrust enforcement that shapes merger approvals affecting millions of consumers [1]. When the FTC challenges a hospital merger or investigates tech platform practices, those decisions now flow from commissioners who can be fired at will [1].
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the three liberal dissenters, called the decision "grievously wrong" [1]. The majority offered no carve-out for multimember boards [1]. During Trump's first term, the Court allowed him to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but that ruling rested on the agency being run by a single director rather than a board [1]. Thursday's decision eliminates that distinction [1].
How independent agency enforcement works
Independent agencies operate through a deliberative process designed to insulate enforcement from political pressure [1]. At the FTC, commissioners vote on whether to authorize investigations, issue subpoenas, file complaints, or approve consent decrees [1]. A company accused of anticompetitive conduct faces an administrative law judge, with appeals heard by the full commission before reaching federal court [1]. This process typically spans 18 to 36 months from investigation to resolution [1].
The same structure governs the National Labor Relations Board, which processes unfair labor practice charges filed by workers and unions [1]. The NLRB received approximately 17,000 such charges in fiscal year 2024 [1]. Each case requires investigation, legal analysis, and a determination of whether to issue a complaint, decisions made by regional directors and board members who, until Thursday, could only be removed for cause [1]. Workers who file retaliation claims or seek union representation now face adjudicators who serve at presidential discretion [1].
The Federal Reserve's procedural limbo
The same day, the Court ruled 5-4 that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her position "until litigation is resolved in lower courts" [1]. That is not a merits decision. It is a timeline [1].
Trump fired Cook in August 2024, alleging mortgage fraud based on accusations first posted on social media [1]. A lower federal court temporarily reinstated her [1]. The White House appealed, and the Supreme Court granted a stay of the lower court's order in September 2025, with three justices dissenting [1]. Thursday's ruling keeps her off the Board but does not explain why the Fed receives different procedural treatment than the FTC [1].
The stay protects Cook until the district court issues a decision on the merits [1]. When it does, Humphrey's Executor will no longer be available as a defense [1]. The statutory language protecting Fed governors from removal except for cause is identical in structure to the FTC provision the Court just invalidated [1]. The lower court can apply Thursday's precedent or distinguish the Fed on grounds the Supreme Court has not yet articulated [1].
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell's term runs until May 2026 [1]. The legal question of whether he can be removed without cause remains unresolved only because no one has yet filed the case that would force the Court to rule on it directly [1].
Two dozen agencies, immediate effect
Slaughter estimated that approximately 24 agencies share the FTC's structural model [1]. Trump has already fired two Democratic-appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees unions [1]. The NLRB, like the FTC, was designed with for-cause removal protections and bipartisan membership requirements [1]. The removal protections are now void [1].
The ruling takes effect immediately [1]. Commissioners at independent agencies can be removed at will [1]. The statutory mandates those agencies administer remain on the books, but the officials enforcing them serve at presidential discretion [1].
The Federal Reserve's procedural reprieve lasts until the lower court resolves Cook's case [1]. When that happens, the same constitutional logic the Court applied to the FTC on Thursday will govern the outcome [1]. The question is not whether the Fed's independence survives, but how long the litigation takes to reach its conclusion [1].
Until then, the central bank operates in a legal gray area, functionally independent by custom, constitutionally vulnerable by precedent, and one lawsuit away from presidential control [1].
