The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the president may dismiss members of independent federal agencies without cause, overturning a 1935 precedent that had shielded such officials from political removal. In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the court’s conservative majority held that tenure protections for commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) violate the constitutional separation of powers. The ruling immediately validates President Donald Trump’s March 2025 firing of Democratic FTC member Rebecca Slaughter and is expected to extend his removal authority to leaders of more than two dozen other regulatory bodies, including the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. On the same day, however, the court declined to permit the immediate dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, citing the administration’s failure to provide her with notice and an opportunity to respond to allegations of mortgage fraud.

President Trump celebrated the Slaughter ruling as a “Historic and Unprecedented” affirmation of executive power under Article II of the Constitution, stating that such authority had been sought by presidents since the 1930s. The court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, characterised the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision as an outlier that had wrongly insulated agencies from presidential control. “Independent agencies are not ‘independent’ in the sense that they are free of the President,” Roberts wrote, arguing that Congress cannot limit the president’s power to remove subordinates who exercise executive authority. Democratic lawmakers and the court’s three liberal justices sharply criticised the outcome. Senator Elizabeth Warren said the decision allows the president to turn agencies into instruments serving “his billionaire friends instead of the American public.” In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor described the ruling as “grievously wrong,” warning that it grants the president “a power unknown even to the English Crown” and fundamentally reshapes the structure of government.

The ruling’s implications extend well beyond the FTC. By overruling Humphrey’s Executor, the court has removed the legal foundation for for-cause removal protections that Congress enacted for a wide range of independent agencies. Legal observers in Washington note that the decision could enable the president to replace agency heads whose policy views diverge from the administration’s priorities, potentially altering the enforcement of antitrust, consumer protection and labour law. The court, however, drew a distinct line for the Federal Reserve. In Trump v. Cook, a separate order signed by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court refused to lift a lower-court injunction blocking Cook’s removal. The majority emphasised that the Fed possesses a “unique historical tradition” and that the Trump administration had not afforded Cook basic procedural fairness. This narrow reasoning leaves open the possibility that the president could eventually remove Fed governors if due process is observed, but for now it preserves the central bank’s operational independence.

The legal battle began after Trump dismissed Slaughter in March 2025, citing policy disagreements. Lower federal courts initially reinstated her, ruling that the FTC Act permits removal only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. The Supreme Court temporarily allowed the firing to take effect in September 2025 while agreeing to hear the merits. Monday’s decision marks the culmination of that process and is the latest in a series of rulings that have expanded presidential authority, including the recognition of immunity for official acts and restrictions on nationwide injunctions. The Slaughter ruling is final and will govern future dismissals. In the Cook case, litigation continues, and Trump has signalled on social media that his administration will “take appropriate action immediately” to pursue her removal once procedural requirements are met. The Federal Reserve Board is expected to remain a distinct legal battleground as the administration tests the boundaries of the court’s new framework.