The Supreme Court on June 29 delivered a landmark ruling that restores executive authority over independent agencies, upholding President Donald Trump's March 2025 dismissal of a Democratic Federal Trade Commission member and overturning a 91-year-old precedent that had limited presidential power. The decision clarifies that congressional restrictions on a president's ability to remove FTC commissioners unconstitutionally encroach on executive authority.
The ruling affects more than a dozen federal agencies and resolves a constitutional question that's lingered since the New Deal era. Trump asked the court to overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that upheld removal restrictions for leaders of multimember administrative agencies. The court has been chipping away at that precedent since 2010.
Constitutional Victory
Margot Cleveland, of counsel at the right-leaning NCLA, called the decision "a huge victory for our constitutional republic." By expressly overturning Humphrey's Executor and returning to a faithful interpretation of separation of powers, Cleveland said, "the Court's decision in Slaughter ensures that federal agencies remain answerable to the Executive—and in turn the American people who elected the President."
After taking office again in 2025, Trump declared all federal agencies were under his control. In March 2025, he fired two Democratic members of the five-member FTC board, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. Bedoya initially joined Slaughter's legal challenge but eventually withdrew.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters 51 days ago that Trump could fire any staffers who were part of the executive branch. "He has the right to fire people within the executive branch," Leavitt said on May 9. "It's a pretty simple answer."
Broader Agency Impact
The decision's reach extends beyond the FTC. The firings of three U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission commissioners in May 2025 will likely remain in place following the Supreme Court's ruling, according to consumer advocates. Trump attempted to remove three Democrats among the five CPSC commissioners 1 year and 1 month ago.
Courtney Griffin, director of consumer product safety at the Consumer Federation of America, said it's CFA's understanding that the CPSC "firings were going to be decided by this case." "Those firings will stand because this (FTC) firing has stood," Griffin said.
The FTC enforces a variety of antitrust and consumer protection laws affecting virtually every area of commerce. The ruling transfers the power to fire leaders of independent agencies from Congress to the president, fundamentally altering the balance of authority over regulatory bodies.
Critics Voice Concerns
Consumer advocacy groups expressed alarm at the decision's implications. Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of competition and market fairness at CFA, warned in a statement that the decision risks "turning independent consumer protection agencies into political pawns." "When the experts charged with policing fraud, protecting competition, and standing up to powerful corporations can be removed at will, consumers lose an important safeguard against abuse," Peterson-Cassin said.
Bedoya released a statement on June 29 calling the Supreme Court "a billionaire's fan club," claiming it's allowing corporations to hurt people and deny them their day in court. "The only people who will win from this ruling are the President's billionaire golfing buddies. And at the Supreme Court, this is par for the course," Bedoya said.
Alexandra Reeve Givens, president and CEO of left-leaning CDT, said Trump's "administration has made no effort to hide its desire to use the levers of government authority to strongarm and intimidate political enemies. The Supreme Court has taken down one of the key barriers stopping them."
Griffin added that "today's decision does more than undermine one agency. It completely reshapes our government, and that includes the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the watchdog that guards against dangerous products that injure and kill."
Why This Matters:
This ruling restores constitutional clarity to executive authority and resolves decades of ambiguity about who controls federal agencies. By affirming that independent agencies answer to the elected president rather than operating as a fourth branch of government, the court strengthens accountability to voters. The decision doesn't eliminate these agencies or their missions—it simply establishes that their leaders serve at the pleasure of the president Americans elect. This matters for fiscal responsibility and regulatory efficiency: when agency heads can't be removed for poor performance or misaligned priorities, taxpayers bear the cost of ineffective governance. The ruling also settles the question of whether Congress can insulate bureaucrats from democratic accountability, a concern that's grown as the administrative state has expanded far beyond what the New Deal generation envisioned.