Supreme Court Debates Presidential Power Over Independent Agencies
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices engaged in a profound constitutional debate Monday that could reshape the balance of power in Washington. At issue is a fundamental question about presidential authority: Should presidents have the power to fire members of independent agency boards at will? The case, Trump v. Slaughter, revolves around the attempted dismissal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, but its implications stretch far beyond one individual. As the justices pressed lawyers from both sides, they revealed concerns about potentially undermining nearly a century of governmental structure that has kept certain agencies insulated from direct presidential control.
Chief Justice John Roberts led the questioning by probing the limits of congressional authority to restrict presidential power over these agencies. Defending the current system, attorney Hash Mooppan Agarwal acknowledged the “competing dangers” involved but emphasized that independent agencies have functioned effectively for almost 100 years. He warned that expanding presidential firing power could put “everything on the chopping block,” essentially threatening the stability and independence these agencies were designed to maintain. Justice Samuel Alito pushed back against this cautious approach, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett, potentially a decisive vote within the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, questioned how such structures might function in the decades ahead, suggesting openness to reconsidering long-standing precedents.
At the heart of this case is the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which has long protected agencies like the FTC from presidential removal power. This landmark ruling established that certain regulatory bodies should operate with a degree of independence from White House control, allowing commissioners to serve fixed terms unless removed for specific causes like neglect or malfeasance. Overturning this precedent would represent a seismic shift in the administrative state’s architecture and could potentially subject numerous federal agencies to greater presidential control. The justices seemed aware of the sweeping implications their decision could have across the federal government, with several expressing concern about unintended consequences.
Perhaps the most revealing exchange came when Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who has previously criticized limitations on presidential removal power, raised concerns about how the decision might affect the Federal Reserve. Despite being viewed as potentially sympathetic to expanding presidential authority, Kavanaugh appeared troubled by the prospect of undermining the Fed’s independence. Attorney Andrew Sauer attempted to distinguish the Federal Reserve as “quasi-private” with a unique legal structure, suggesting it might be treated differently than other agencies. This exchange highlighted the complex balancing act facing the justices: how to rule consistently on presidential power while avoiding destabilizing effects on institutions that require independence to fulfill their missions effectively.
The case arrives at the Supreme Court at a politically charged moment, with former President Trump potentially returning to office following the 2024 election. Trump’s administration was marked by friction with various independent agencies, and this legal challenge aligns with his broader critiques of the “administrative state.” While the court has provisionally allowed many of Trump’s agency firings to stand during this litigation, they made an exception for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whose removal will be reviewed separately in January. This selective approach suggests the justices recognize the particularly sensitive nature of Federal Reserve independence and may be looking to craft a nuanced ruling that distinguishes between different types of agencies.
The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will likely reverberate throughout Washington’s power structure for generations to come. If the conservative majority rules broadly in favor of expanded presidential removal power, it could fundamentally alter how regulatory agencies operate, potentially making them more responsive to White House priorities but also more vulnerable to political pressure. Conversely, if the court upholds the existing framework, it would reaffirm the value of institutional independence in certain regulatory contexts. Whatever the outcome, this case represents one of the most significant challenges to administrative governance in decades, asking fundamental questions about presidential power, congressional authority, and the proper functioning of a complex modern government. As the justices deliberate in the months ahead, the future of America’s regulatory framework hangs in the balance.
