The Supreme Court is expected to rule before July in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, cases that could end independent agency job protections and restructure federal regulation.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue decisions in two consolidated removal-power cases, *Trump v. Slaughter* and *Trump v. Cook*, before the close of the current term in late June or early July [1][2]. At stake is whether the president may remove commissioners and governors of independent federal agencies at will, a question that could dismantle or fundamentally reorder the governance structures of roughly two dozen bipartisan regulatory bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Reserve [2].
The cases arose after the Trump administration fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook [3]. Slaughter challenged her removal, arguing that existing statutory for-cause protections shielded her position. Cook remains in her seat at the Fed under a lower-court injunction while the litigation proceeds [3]. Both cases reached the Supreme Court on an expedited posture, and the Court heard oral argument in the matters during the current term [1].
At oral argument, all six conservative justices signaled receptiveness to the administration's position that the president must retain removal authority over officials exercising executive functions [1]. The liberal justices, led by Justice Elena Kagan, warned that a ruling for the government would concentrate unchecked power in the executive branch and upend nearly a century of administrative law [1]. The doctrinal foundation under direct pressure is *Humphrey's Executor v. United States* (1935), in which the Court upheld for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners and anchored independent agency design for generations [2]. A ruling overturning or substantially limiting *Humphrey's Executor* would be the most consequential administrative-law decision since that ruling itself [2].
The practical consequences for regulatory counsel are immediate. Corporate compliance programs, enforcement posture at the FTC and NLRB, and the perceived independence of Federal Reserve monetary policy all turn on the outcome [2]. If the Court rules for the president in *Slaughter*, it likely resolves *Cook* on the same logic, eliminating the injunction that currently keeps Cook at the Fed [3]. A ruling is expected before the Court's summer recess [1][2].
—