Supreme Court Likely To Allow Trump To Fire Independent Agency Chiefs

The US Supreme Court indicated during oral arguments that it is prepared to permit the president to remove leaders of independent federal agencies at will - a move that could weaken decades-old protections shielding regulatory bodies from political control. The case centers on the dismissal of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission, and touches on the fate of more than two dozen agencies governed by similar“for-cause” removal statutes. The justices heard heated argument over whether the longstanding doctrine enshrined in a 1935 ruling-Humphrey's Executor v. United States-should survive in today's regulatory landscape.

At issue is whether commissioners of multi-member regulatory bodies remain insulated from arbitrary dismissal. For nearly a century, Humphrey's Executor has barred the president from removing agency officials except for“inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In March 2025, however, the White House terminated Democrats Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, prompting lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court.

During Monday's hearing, the conservative majority pressed arguments that agencies like the FTC now wield executive authority and therefore belong under the direct control of the president, citing Article II of the Constitution. Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's Executor as“a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was,” signalling willingness to abandon or significantly narrow its application. Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Congress should have power to make cabinet departments into“multi-member commissions whose members are not subject to at-will removal.”

Opposing Justices warned that upending the doctrine would concentrate unchecked authority in the executive branch and threaten the independence of agencies established to act as expert regulators insulated from partisan politics. Justice Elena Kagan cautioned that granting unfettered removal power may allow presidents to espouse“massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power... not only to do traditional execution, but to make law.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly noted the risk of replacing experienced regulators with political loyalists lacking subject-matter expertise.

If the Court backs the administration, the decision could reshape regulatory governance in the United States. Agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and others may fall under tighter White House control, altering how consumer protection, labour rights, environmental regulation, financial oversight, and public safety are administered. Business groups advocating deregulation view a favourable outcome as a long-sought victory over what they term the“administrative state.” Meanwhile, defenders of regulatory independence warn of politicised enforcement, instability, and loss of institutional expertise.

Proponents of executive control argue that independent agencies exercising executive power should be accountable to the president, while critics rely on the idea that Congress deliberately structured these bodies to be independent as a check on political interference. Legal observers note that while the Court has expanded presidential firing power in prior cases - for example, by narrowing protections for single-director agencies - it has stopped short of overruling the foundational doctrine until now.

Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.

MENAFN10122025000152002308ID1110462388