Supreme Court Ruling Impacts Presidential Power Over Federal Agencies

The Supreme Court’s recent decision might do more than grant President Donald Trump additional powers—it could pave the way for a larger challenge to the contemporary administrative structure, often labeled as the “deep state” by some conservatives.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Court determined that President Trump has the right to dismiss Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, thereby overturning a near-century-old precedent known as Humphrey’s, which had protected independent agency employees from being fired at will.

Though Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that the FTC, as an executive body, must have leaders accountable to the president, Justice Gorsuch raised concerns about the broader constitutional implications. He questioned whether Congress should retain the power to delegate wide-ranging legislative and judicial authority to the executive branch.

“The Fourth Branch’s powers still exist, but they have simply been reassigned to the President,” Gorsuch noted in his concurring opinion.

This ruling may present a significant focal point in the Supreme Court’s ongoing efforts to redefine the modern administrative landscape.

For many years, independent agencies—including the FTC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and National Labor Relations Board—have performed a variety of government functions. These agencies investigate alleged violations, craft regulations with legal weight, and manage enforcement actions using administrative protocols.

Now, with the Humphrey precedent overturned, while these agencies would continue to exist, their leadership would come under direct presidential authority if he decides to employ executive powers. Gorsuch emphasized whether Congress can continue to delegate such expansive powers to agencies now clearly under the president’s oversight.

“The authority to create new regulatory offenses is intact,” Gorsuch stated. “The capacity to resolve internal disputes also remains, but the landscape has changed.”

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, indicated that Gorsuch’s concurrence signifies a shift in upcoming legal actions.

“I think the next phase in this litigation isn’t merely about firings,” Severino remarked, “but really analyzing whether these executive agencies fit into any constitutional categories—executive, legislative, or judicial.”

The ruling restores presidential authority but doesn’t clarify if these agencies can maintain the quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions historically granted by Congress.

“There’s still considerable work ahead to eliminate activities that go beyond mere administrative functions within these agencies that are now under appropriate control,” Severino commented.

Haley Proctor, a law professor at Notre Dame, similarly views Gorsuch’s opinion as a guide for future legal disputes.

“What Judge Gorsuch implies is that this represents an initial move toward reconsidering how we allocate powers within the administrative state,” Proctor explained.

According to Proctor, this opens the door for Congress to potentially reclaim powers handed over to federal agencies or shift certain responsibilities back to Article III courts.

“If you’re uneasy about the powers of the Federal Trade Commission, perhaps it’s time to reconsider whether it should have that authority in the first place. Some decisions could be made by Congress or could involve the courts,” he suggested.

The majority opinion, however, did not address these deeper issues, restricting its focus solely to the president’s authority over removals. The Court concluded that the FTC undeniably exercises executive power, necessitating that its commissioners be answerable to the president.

Importantly, the justices did not settle how much power Congress can delegate to the executive branch concerning rule-making and dispute resolution, indicating that questions concerning other institutions like the Federal Reserve would remain unresolved for now.

Nevertheless, Gorsuch proposed that the Constitution provides options to significantly curtail the powers of independent federal agencies, suggesting that future legal endeavors could push even further. He pointed out various constitutional tenets that could be used to restore legislative power to Congress and judicial authority to the courts.

“The only certain path forward is to extend the journey initiated today and return legislative and judicial power to its appropriate place: Congress and the courts,” Gorsuch asserted.