Can the President Fire Agency Officials? Executive vs. Independent Power

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on the president’s power to fire independent agency officials. The decision in Trump v. Slaughter held that the “for cause” removal requirement for Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Slaughter overruled longstanding precedent from Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which had protected commissioners and board members of independent agencies from at-will presidential removal.

Although the future implications of the decision are difficult to predict, the decision brings immediate change. Under Slaughter, the president can fire FTC commissioners, and potentially other leaders of independent agencies, without demonstrating cause. The decision expands presidential power over administrative agencies.

However, the decision does not directly affect the broader federal workforce or ordinary civil servants protected by separate employment laws. It applies only to the presidential removal of agency leaders and commissioners.

If you have an administrative law issue, use the Super Lawyers Directory to find and hire a local attorney who specializes in administrative law. They can explain your legal options.

Trump v. Slaughter: Legal and Procedural Background

From the beginning of President Donald Trump’s second term, he dismissed dozens of officials from independent regulatory commissions who are covered by statutory for-cause removal provisions. These removal provisions required some form of cause for the President to remove a commissioner or board member of a multi-member commission-style or independent regulatory agency.

Many of these statutory provisions require that removal be tied to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Under President Trump’s leadership, the executive branch concluded that the existing statutory restrictions on removal are an unconstitutional restraint on the President’s constitutional executive authority.

Members of several independent agencies filed lawsuits in federal court challenging their removal, including Rebecca Slaughter of the FTC and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The federal courts initially ruled in their favor, reinstating the ousted government officials. The courts relied on longstanding precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which limited a president’s ability to remove certain agency officials without cause.

The government sought a stay of those rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Once the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, it directed the parties to brief and argue the following:

1. Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers
2. If so, whether Humphrey’s Executor (1935) should be overruled

The Supreme Court’s Slaughter Decision

The Court’s decision in Slaughter marks a significant shift in administrative law, which has long allowed Congress to create independent agencies with “for cause” removal protections.

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Slaughter, on whether the president can fire appointed officials at independent agencies, overturned a 90-year-old process. A single case wiped away 90 years of precedent,” says Jeffrey Lewis, a First Amendment litigator and founding attorney of Jeff Lewis Law in Rolling Hills Estates, California.

Legal Background of the Slaughter Case: The FTC Act

Under the FTC Act, passed in 1914, the FTC Commissioners could only be removed by the President “for cause.”

In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld this statutory directive. It reasoned that the FTC’s duties, which involved creating regulations and deciding disputes, were not purely “executive.” The FTC exercised quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers.

Independent commissions have traditionally been structured with bipartisan membership and staggered terms to reduce direct presidential control. Following Humphrey’s Executor, Congress created dozens of independent agencies with similar removal protections.

These agencies were designed to operate in the public interest, as determined by their independent expert members, rather than be subject to political pressure from each presidential administration.

Factual Background of the Slaughter Case

In Slaughter, Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya because their continued service was inconsistent with his administration’s priorities.

Both argued that Trump failed to identify a cause for removing them that satisfied the “for cause” protections under the FTC statute. Bedoya later resigned, leaving Slaughter to pursue her legal challenge.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling in the Slaughter Case

In a 6-3 decision, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court ruled against a legal challenge by a former FTC Commissioner. The Court held that such for-cause removal protections violate the separation of powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution and the unity of the executive branch and its officials.

The Court noted that it’s up to the advice and consent of the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, but neither the courts nor Congress must saddle him with those with whom he cannot work.

The Court explained that officers exercising executive power must remain subject to presidential supervision and removal. The decision means that the provisions limiting the removal of FTC commissioners are no longer applicable. The Court did not decide whether the President has the power to directly remove “inferior officers,” officials appointed by agency leaders.

What Are the Broader Implications of Slaughter?

Although Slaughter directly concerned FTC commissioners, dozens of independent regulatory commissions have similar or identical statutory removal provisions, including:

• The Election Assistance Commission
• The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
• The Federal Communications Commission
• The National Transportation Safety Board
• The Securities and Exchange Commission

Following Slaughter, those provisions may now rest on an uncertain foundation. They are now likely subject to at-will presidential removal under the decision’s framework.

An Exception for the Federal Reserve

Despite the ruling in Slaughter, the Court allowed Lisa Cook, a U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors member, to remain in office while litigation continues.

The Court suggested that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors may occupy a distinct status in Trump v. Cook (2026).

Consult an Administrative Law Attorney

The Supreme Court’s broad ruling striking down removal protections for FTC commissioners likely means that similarly structured agencies, including the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, will face similar situations.

For those operating companies in heavily regulated industries, you should assess strategies and prepare for the possibility that enforcement postures may shift more rapidly when administrations change.

Consult an administrative law attorney for legal advice and help in an administrative matter.