Independent agencies have long been a key part of the federal administrative state. Today, they effectively govern wide swaths of the economy—enforcing antitrust laws, regulating securities markets, and managing interstate energy sales, among many other things. But after the U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, it looks like the way these agencies work is about to change.
By statute, many multi-member independent agencies are shielded from direct presidential control by for-cause removal protections, fixed terms, and bipartisan membership requirements. These features, in theory, keep the agencies from being blown around by the prevailing political winds. Agency rulemakings, investigations, and enforcement actions are instead voted on by a bipartisan group of commissioners. This structure was designed to ensure that regulatory policy is set by a group of experts with a diversity of views and a longer time horizon than a single presidential administration.
The current administration wants to pull the cornerstone from this edifice, arguing in Trump v. Slaughter that under the Constitution, the heads of an independent agency can still be fired at will. The statute that created the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) bars commissioners like Rebecca Slaughter from being fired absent "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." 15 U.S.C. § 41. Yet the president fired Commissioner Slaughter without citing any such cause. The case reached the Supreme Court in an expedited posture after the Court stayed a district court order requiring Commissioner Slaughter's reinstatement and granted cert before judgment. When the Court heard arguments on December 8, 2025, the questions largely favored the administration's position that agencies should be directly accountable to the president.
The Argument
During the argument, the advocates and justices discussed not only the structure of the FTC, but also that of many other agencies with similar "for cause" removal protections. Indeed, the justices spent much of the argument asking questions about how a ruling upholding Commissioner Slaughter's firing from the FTC would affect the functioning of other agencies.
The Supreme Court long ago upheld the constitutionality of the FTC Commissioners' for-cause removal restrictions in a case called Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Before the oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, the Court directed the advocates to address whether this 90-year-old case should be overruled.
Several justices' questions suggested an interest in overruling Humphrey's Executor. Indeed, many questions focused not on whether to overrule Humphrey's Executor but rather how to do so in light of the sweeping consequences that such a decision could have. Depending on the Court's rationale, the same logic that holds "for cause" removal restrictions for agency heads unconstitutional might extend to removal restrictions for inferior officers. One justice even suggested the government's preferred rationale would logically extend to all government employees who wield executive power, putting long-standing civil service protections at risk.
Moreover, some justices gestured at a deeper structural problem for independent agencies. When Congress created these agencies, it struck an implicit bargain in which it granted the agencies significant authority—including not just core executive enforcement power but also rulemaking and adjudicatory power—and, in exchange, it insulated the agencies from direct presidential control. If Congress knew one of the key elements of that bargain would be declared unconstitutional, it might not have delegated such broad authority. That is particularly true with respect to agencies' rulemaking power, which some justices viewed as an extension of Congress's legislative authority. If Humphrey's Executor falls, the agencies' broad powers to make rules with the force of law would be exercised at the direction of the president. Congress would then have to decide whether to stand by the authority it vested in the independent agencies if their policy objectives are directly controlled by the president.
Implications for Businesses
The Court's willingness to take a second look at its precedent after nearly a hundred years is in line with its increased willingness in recent terms to rethink administrative agencies, what they may do, and how they are run.
Even before the Court issues its decision, the uncertainty surrounding agency leadership and authority may affect enforcement and settlement dynamics at dozens of agencies. Most immediately, a ruling that the FTC commissioners' "for cause" removal protections are unconstitutional may affect parties being investigated by or in enforcement proceedings with agencies that have similar removal protections for their agency heads. Individuals and businesses may be able to challenge the constitutionality of actions taken against them by such agencies. The decision also could have consequences for the relationship between the White House and formerly independent agencies. If the president has greater control over agencies' policy agendas, then businesses may increasingly need to raise their policy objectives, not only with agencies but also with the White House. Moreover, a ruling in President Trump's favor may open the door to more claims against long-standing agency rules and structures.
If you or your business may be affected by the decision in Trump v. Slaughter, we would love to hear from you in the new year.