On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, overturning a 91-year-old precedent on presidential power over independent agencies. The precedent was established by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States in 1935, which protected members of independent agencies from arbitrary dismissal by the president. 

Unlike executive departments such as the Department of State that are led by secretaries who the president can fire at will, independent agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are traditionally led by multi-person, bipartisan boards with fixed term limits who cannot be fired by the president without cause. This structure is intended to shield independent agencies from partisan politics to ensure objective oversight. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is one such independent agency and is at the heart of the Trump v. Slaughter case. 

While the leaders of independent agencies are nominated by the president just like the leaders of executive departments, before the June decision, the leaders of independent agencies could only be fired if the president cited a legitimate cause unrelated to policy disagreements or political friction. With the Trump v. Slaughter ruling, the president can now fire presidentially-nominated commissioners and administrators at will. The change specifically targets presidentially-appointed leaders but doesn’t alter the job security of the day-to-day staff working within these agencies.

The Battle Over the Federal Trade Commission

Congress established the FTC with the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, structuring the agency to ensure non-partisan enforcement of fair market competition and consumer protection laws. The Act creates a commission headed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. To ensure non-partisanship, the Act dictates that no more than three of the five Commissioners can belong to the same political party, while also staggering their seven-year terms of office. 

The FTC Act’s non-partisanship provision came into question on March 18, 2025, when President Trump fired two Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, from the FTC. The Trump administration stated that both commissioners’ continued service was “inconsistent with [the Trump] administration’s priorities.” Slaughter fought back by suing the administration to block the firing and reclaim her position, culminating in the recent events. 

Ruling Sparks Debate

Following the 6-3 ruling in his favor, President Trump celebrated on Truth Social, claiming it was “the Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years.” Two days later, President Trump espoused how people “didn’t think it would ever be won” in his speech at his Great American State Fair in Iowa. Chief Justice Roberts was praised by the National Review for his majority opinion, noting that the case leaves the possibility open for further administrative restructuring. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s minority position, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, issued a sharp rebuke of the ruling. The Supreme Court Justice broke with tradition by reading a summary of her dissent from the bench, reflecting her strong disagreement. Sotomayor criticized the majority opinion’s lack of theoretical explanation, writing that it “promises to unleash only chaos.” 

The Future of Independent Federal Agencies

Trump v. Slaughter has been hailed as a transformative case that could fundamentally alter the nation’s governmental structure. Independent federal agencies such as the FTC had long been dubbed the “fourth branch”, indicating their independence from the political will of the Executive Branch. Their power is mostly derived from Congress, which exerts financial control, enacts legislation, and holds the authority to establish offices. However, granting more control to the Executive Branch rejects the notion of a separate administrative body with authority delegated by the Legislative Branch. 

While the case was limited to executive firing power, it leaves the door open to further questions on power delegation itself. Trump v. Slaughter is one case in President Trump’s initiative to deregulate the administrative state, perhaps serving as a major stepping stone for future litigation.