The Supreme Court signaled at oral argument in *Trump v. Slaughter* that it is prepared to overrule *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, the 1935…
The Supreme Court signaled at oral argument in *Trump v. Slaughter* that it is prepared to overrule *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, the 1935 precedent that has shielded commissioners of independent federal agencies from at-will presidential removal for nine decades [1]. All six conservative justices indicated that the president should hold near-unlimited authority to dismiss such officers, a posture that, if translated into a majority opinion, would fundamentally alter the structure of the modern administrative state [1]. A decision is expected before the end of June 2026 [2].
The case arose after President Trump moved to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, before the expiration of her statutory term [1]. The FTC's enabling statute, like those of roughly two dozen other independent agencies, limits removal of commissioners to "for cause," a restriction *Humphrey's Executor* upheld as constitutional [1]. Slaughter challenged her removal, and the dispute reached the Supreme Court as *Trump v. Slaughter*, a case now positioned as the most direct assault on *Humphrey's Executor* since the Court carved back that precedent in *Seila Law LLC v. CFPB* (2020) and *Collins v. Yellen* (2021) [1].
The substantive stakes extend well beyond the FTC. Agencies whose commissioners carry for-cause protection include the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Election Commission, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [1]. A ruling for Trump would render those protections unenforceable, converting the leadership of each body into a position held at the president's pleasure [1]. Chief Justice John Roberts, according to reporting on the oral argument, characterized *Humphrey's Executor* as a "dried husk," language that left little ambiguity about his inclination [1]. The three liberal justices, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson among them, offered pointed challenges to the government's position but could not command a majority [1].
One contested carve-out involves the Federal Reserve. Several justices suggested the central bank's unique statutory structure and systemic economic importance might warrant different treatment, though no clear consensus emerged [1]. Separately, Trump has attempted to remove Lisa Cook, a Democratic governor of the Federal Reserve Board, a move that has generated parallel litigation and would likely be governed by whatever framework the Court announces in *Slaughter* [2].
Counsel advising regulated industries and agency stakeholders should treat a ruling for Trump as the base case. Once the opinion issues, for-cause removal provisions across the administrative code will face immediate legal vulnerability, and any affected agency action taken after a commissioner's contested removal could be challenged as ultra vires [1].
—
**Meta Description:** The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority signaled it will overrule Humphrey's Executor in Trump v. Slaughter, threatening removal protections at the FTC, SEC, NLRB, and beyond.
**Slug:** trump-v-slaughter-humphreys-executor-removal-power
**Tags:** Legal News, Appellate Development, Trump v. Slaughter (SCOTUS), United States, Washington DC, Executive Power, Presidential Removal, Administrative Law, U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Reserve, Rebecca Slaughter, John Roberts, Elena Kagan
—
**Metadata:**
– subject: Trump v. Slaughter, FTC Commissioner Removal
– subject_type: Appellate Development
– date: 2026-05-25
– jurisdiction: federal
– country: USA
– region: N/A
– city: Washington
– key_people: Rebecca Slaughter, John Roberts, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Lisa Cook
– key_organizations: U.S. Supreme Court, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Reserve
– themes: Executive Power, Presidential Removal, Administrative Law
– significance: A ruling for Trump would be the most consequential restructuring of the administrative state in 90 years, eliminating statutory removal protections for commissioners of the FTC, SEC, NLRB, FEC, CFPB, and other independent agencies.
—
**References:**
[1] ABC News. (2025, December 8). Supreme Court likely to allow Trump FTC firing, expanding presidential power. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/landmark-case-supreme-court-rule-trumps-bid-control/story?id=128073464
[2] Washington Times. (2026, May 25). More than a dozen Supreme Court rulings to watch for this term. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/may/25/dozen-supreme-court-rulings-watch-term/