The Supreme Court of the United States has fundamentally altered the architecture of the federal regulatory state, ruling that the president may dismiss the heads of independent agencies at will, while simultaneously blocking the immediate removal of a Federal Reserve governor. In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority overturned the 1935 precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor, which had shielded leaders of bodies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission from politically motivated firings. The ruling, which stemmed from President Donald Trump’s dismissal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, now subjects more than two dozen agencies to direct presidential control. In a separate 5-4 judgment, however, the court held that Fed Governor Lisa Cook cannot be removed without due process, describing the central bank as “unique” and its independence a pillar of sound monetary policy.

Viewed from Washington, the twin decisions represent a significant victory for proponents of the unitary executive theory, a doctrine long championed by conservative legal circles that holds the president possesses sole authority over the executive branch. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority in the Slaughter case, stated that “subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to his removal,” arguing that only then can they be accountable to the president and, through him, to the electorate. President Trump celebrated the ruling as “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” asserting it had been sought by presidents since the 1930s. The three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor warning the majority’s “unbalanced” logic would lead to “chaos.”

The practical implications are sweeping. Agencies that oversee Wall Street, enforce labour law, and protect consumers—including the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—now operate under the shadow of presidential dismissal without cause. Legal analysts in the United States note that the decision dismantles a century-old congressional design intended to insulate regulatory expertise from partisan swings, creating what one former FTC chairman called “a huge amount of turbulence.” The ruling does not affect the judiciary or legislative branch agencies, but it effectively places the leadership of most independent executive agencies at the pleasure of the incumbent president.

The court carved out a narrow exception for the Federal Reserve, citing its distinct constitutional and historical role. The majority ruled that Trump failed to provide Cook with the procedural guarantees required by the Federal Reserve Act, which permits removal only “for cause.” Cook, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, welcomed the decision, stating it reaffirmed that the Fed must make policy “based on evidence and independent judgment, free from political interference.” Trump dismissed the outcome as “strictly procedural” and vowed to take immediate action to ensure “someone who has committed wrongdoing” does not make vital decisions. The case now returns to a lower court, where the administration must present evidence of mortgage fraud and allow Cook an opportunity to respond, a process that legal observers in London and Washington expect to be protracted.