Supreme Court Signals Support for Presidential Authority Over Federal Agency Directors
On Monday, the Supreme Court hinted at backing President Donald Trump’s move to dismiss agency directors, which could enhance presidential power over independent federal agencies.
The court’s conservative majority is contemplating whether to overturn, or maintain, a ruling from nearly 90 years ago that restricts presidential ability to discharge government officials.
Chief Justice John Roberts referred to the case, known as Humphrey’s Executor, as merely a “dry husk.”
Lawyers for the administration are supporting Trump’s dismissal of Federal Trade Commission chief Rebecca Slaughter without cause, urging the court to reconsider the unanimous ruling from 1935 concerning the removal of officials.
The six conservative justices have shown considerable support for the administration’s stance, asserting that Slaughter and other agency heads can be terminated despite ongoing legal complications, much to the dismay of their three liberal counterparts.
Other officials dismissed by President Trump include members from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit System Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Currently, only Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve and Sheila Perlmutter, a copyright officer at the Library of Congress, remain in their positions. The court seems inclined to treat the Federal Reserve differently than other independent bodies, especially with Trump hinting at wanting to replace Cook over alleged mortgage fraud, which Cook has denied.
Another aspect of the Slaughter case could influence Cook’s situation. If a termination is ruled illegal, courts may still deliberate on whether a judge has the authority to reinstate that individual.
Justice Neil Gorsuch stated earlier this year that, if fired employees win their cases, they would likely receive back pay but probably not reinstatement. This distinction might impact Cook’s future. The justices appear concerned about the economic instability that could follow if Trump dismisses leaders at the central bank. Separate arguments regarding Cook’s office status during court proceedings are set for January.
Roberts has issued a series of opinions since 2010 that have gradually weakened restrictions on presidential dismissal powers. In 2020, he affirmed that the president’s ability to remove officials is generally the norm, despite the protections indicated in the Humphrey case.
In a 2024 ruling that exempted Trump from prosecution over attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, Roberts included the right to fire as one of the president’s “definitive and exclusive” powers, free from congressional limitations.
The court also revisited a case involving an FTC commissioner dismissed in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt, who sought control over an agency with significant influence during the New Deal.
William Humphrey, the dismissed commissioner, initially refused Roosevelt’s request to resign. Following his passing, the executor managing his estate pursued unpaid compensation, leading to the justices unanimously upholding legislation forming the FTC and restricting the president’s ability to remove commissioners for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office.”
