Supreme Court hears Trump's challenge to limits on presidential removal power, could let him fire officials at will with no cause

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dec. 8, 2025 in Trump v. Slaughter, a case challenging whether President Trump can fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. Trump fired Slaughter on Mar. 18, 2025 via email stating her service was 'inconsistent with my administration's priorities.' The case directly challenges Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision that protects independent agency commissioners from at-will removal. Chief Justice John Roberts previously cleared the way for her firing when the administration sought emergency relief, despite a federal district court ruling her removal was unlawful.

The case tests the 'unitary executive theory,' which holds that Article II of the Constitution gives the president exclusive authority over all executive branch functions. Trump's Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the broadest version of this theory, claiming Trump can fire all executive branch officials regardless of congressionally-imposed for-cause removal protections. Conservative justices appeared receptive during oral arguments, with Justice Neil Gorsuch calling Humphrey's Executor 'poorly reasoned' and suggesting he'd vote to overturn it. Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that accepting Trump's argument would 'destroy the structure of government.'

Trump has already fired commissioners from multiple independent agencies without cause, testing constitutional limits before the Supreme Court rules. On Jan. 28, 2025, he fired Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Commissioners CBCharlotte Burrows and Jocelyn Samuels. In Mar. 2025, he fired both Democratic FTC commissioners—Rebecca Slaughter and ABAlvaro Bedoya. In May 2025, he fired three Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka. He also fired National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris, with federal judges ruling those firings violated federal law.

Independent agencies oversee critical government functions including worker safety, consumer protection, financial regulation, and civil rights enforcement. Agencies potentially affected by a Trump victory include the Federal Reserve (monetary policy), Securities and Exchange Commission (financial markets), National Labor Relations Board (union organizing), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (banking oversight), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (energy infrastructure), and Federal Communications Commission (media regulation). These agencies were structured as independent to insulate technical expertise and enforcement from political pressure, operating with multi-member boards where members serve staggered terms and can only be removed for cause.

The 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent arose when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to fire FTC Commissioner William Humphrey, a conservative holdover from Republican administrations. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress could limit presidential removal power for agencies exercising 'quasi-legislative' and 'quasi-judicial' functions. The Court recognized that FTC commissioners needed independence to investigate corporations and enforce antitrust law without political interference. For 90 years, this precedent protected dozens of independent agencies from presidential control.

Trump's legal team argues the FTC of 2025 is fundamentally different from the 1935 agency. They claim the modern FTC has amassed executive powers including filing civil suits seeking monetary penalties, making substantive rules through rulemaking authority, issuing final orders in agency adjudications, and investigating potential violations. Solicitor General Sauer contended these enforcement powers are purely executive functions that must be controlled by the president, not exercised by independent commissioners insulated from presidential removal. The administration frames this as restoring constitutional accountability over powerful regulatory agencies.

Legal scholars and former government officials warn that overturning Humphrey's Executor would concentrate unprecedented power in the presidency. If Trump can fire independent agency heads at will, future presidents could weaponize financial regulators against political enemies, manipulate Federal Reserve interest rate decisions for electoral advantage, or shut down civil rights investigations into administration allies. The Congressional Research Service identified over 30 federal agencies with for-cause removal protections that would be vulnerable if the Court sides with Trump. Critics argue this would replace 90 years of technocratic expertise with partisan loyalty tests.

The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority appears poised to side with Trump based on Dec. 8 oral arguments. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether Humphrey's Executor fits with their originalist interpretation of Article II executive power. Chief Justice Roberts has already demonstrated sympathy by granting emergency relief allowing Slaughter's firing to proceed. A ruling favoring Trump would represent one of the most significant expansions of presidential power since the Nixon era, fundamentally restructuring the balance between executive authority and congressional limits on that authority.