The Supreme Court is poised to decide whether President Trump can fire heads of independent agencies, potentially reshaping the balance of power in Washington for generations to come.
At a Glance
- Trump has asked the Supreme Court to grant presidents authority to remove independent regulators at will, which would affect agencies like the Federal Reserve
- The cases involve officials Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy A. Harris (MSPB), whom Trump removed but lower courts reinstated
- The administration argues the president shouldn’t delegate power to agency heads who oppose administration policies
- The challenge could overturn a 90-year-old precedent (Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S.) that established job protections for independent agency leaders
- If successful, the legal challenge would dramatically expand presidential power over numerous agencies that impact daily American life
Presidential Authority vs. Agency Independence
The Trump administration’s legal challenge seeks to fundamentally alter the relationship between the White House and dozens of independent regulatory agencies. At stake is whether the president can remove leaders of agencies like the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission without cause. Currently, these agency heads are protected from arbitrary dismissal, allowing them to make decisions based on their statutory mandates rather than political pressure. The administration’s position stems from the “unitary executive theory,” which holds that all executive power constitutionally belongs to the president.
Trump’s legal team, led by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, has specifically targeted the removal of two agency officials: Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. While lower courts reinstated these officials after their removal, the administration has pursued the case to the Supreme Court, arguing their reinstatement prevents the president from exercising constitutional authority.
A Ninety-Year Precedent Under Scrutiny
The legal battle centers around the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This landmark ruling established that Congress could create independent agencies whose leaders have protection from presidential removal except for specific causes like neglect of duty or malfeasance. For nearly nine decades, this precedent has provided a legal foundation for agencies to function independently from direct White House control. The Trump administration now argues this precedent unconstitutionally restricts presidential power and should be overturned.
“This situation is untenable, The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months.” – Solicitor General D. John Sauer
The current Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has previously shown willingness to expand executive power and limit the authority of administrative agencies. In 2020, the Court ruled in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional because its single director wielded too much unchecked power. While that decision left Humphrey’s Executor intact, several justices signaled they might reconsider the precedent in a future case.
Potential Consequences for Governance
Legal experts warn that overturning Humphrey’s Executor could dramatically reshape how the federal government functions. Agencies like the Federal Reserve, which makes monetary policy decisions independent of political influence, could suddenly face direct White House control. The administration has made clear its desire to replace agency leadership with more business-friendly officials who would pursue its deregulatory agenda. Critics argue this would undermine the technical expertise and long-term stability that independent agencies provide.
“it would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.” – Brianne Gorod
The challenge comes amid a broader debate about executive power in American government. Justice Elena Kagan has previously dissented from decisions expanding presidential authority, arguing for the importance of administrative independence. The Court’s ruling could significantly shift the balance of power in Washington, concentrating more authority in the presidency and potentially reducing the role of Congress in shaping regulatory policy. For everyday Americans, the impact could extend to everything from interest rates and financial regulations to workplace protections and communications policy.
