Trump v. Slaughter, Docket No. 25-332

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The President now controls dozens of federal agencies that were designed to make decisions based on expertise and evidence rather than politics. In a 6 to 3 majority, the Court ruled the President can fire the heads of independent agencies whenever he wants. For any reason or no reason at all. That means agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, which polices unfair business practices and protects consumers, now answer directly to the President instead of operating at arm's length from politics. The decision overturned a 91-year-old Supreme Court ruling that had protected these agencies from political interference.

What Happened and Why It Matters

President Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without explaining why. She sued to get her job back, arguing that federal law protected her from being fired without good cause. A lower court agreed with her. But the Supreme Court sided with the President, saying that anyone who enforces federal law must ultimately answer to the President and can be removed at his discretion.

The FTC is no ordinary agency. It writes rules that businesses must follow, holds hearings, and files lawsuits on behalf of the government. The Court concluded that because the FTC exercises real governmental power, the President must be able to control it. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, traced this principle back to the Constitution's original design. The Founders wanted a single President who could be held accountable for how the government operates. If agency officials could ignore the President, the reasoning goes, then no one could really be held responsible for what the government does.

The Court did hint that some agencies might be different. It suggested the Federal Reserve and specialized courts like the Tax Court might keep their independence. But it offered almost no explanation for why. That vagueness will likely spark years of legal battles as other agencies challenge whether they qualify for protection.

The Arguments on Both Sides

The government argued that the Constitution gives all executive power to the President. If agency officials carry out that power, they must answer to the President. The 1935 precedent protecting the FTC was a mistake that had been quietly abandoned by later court decisions anyway. Without presidential control, the government becomes unaccountable to voters.

Commissioner Slaughter's lawyers countered that independent agencies have existed since the nation's founding. Congress has the power to structure agencies to protect them from political pressure. They emphasized legal stability: this law had been on the books for over a century, upheld unanimously by the Supreme Court, and respected by every President until now. Why overturn it now?

The justices themselves seemed divided during oral arguments. Some worried the ruling's logic would sweep too far, threatening civil service protections and specialized courts. Others questioned why no President had challenged independent agencies for ninety years if the practice was truly unconstitutional.

What the Dissenters Said

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, argued the majority should have simply followed the 1935 precedent instead of overturning nine decades of settled law. She pointed out that the Constitution does not explicitly give the President unlimited firing power. Even some of the Founders believed the Senate should have a role in removing officials.

The dissenters also highlighted the practical chaos ahead. Congress created dozens of agencies assuming their leaders would be protected from political removal, including the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Overturning that assumption will force Congress to rewrite the rules for all of them. The Federal Reserve is an exception noted by the dissenters as a logical problem. If the constitutional principle truly requires unlimited presidential removal power, what qualifies it as an exception? The majority's reasoning seems absolute in theory but full of unexplained exceptions in practice.

Presidential Authority vs. Independence

The President can fire anyone who exercises executive power. It sounds simple. But the opinion is actually muddled underneath. The Court's own reasoning would seem to apply to many agencies, yet the opinion stops short of saying so. That gap between the logic and the actual ruling will drive future lawsuits.

Every independent agency with job protections for its leaders now faces potential legal challenge. But whether any given agency will lose that protection depends on whether it falls within the Court's vague exceptions. What makes an agency similar enough to the early national banks to qualify for protection? How court-like does a tribunal need to be? The opinion raises these questions without answering them.

Justice Gorsuch highlighted a major shift this decision creates. Congress may have felt comfortable giving agencies broad authority to write rules and conduct hearings precisely because those agencies were independent. Now that independence is gone, that authority is concentrated in one person.