The Supreme Court's six conservative justices appear ready to overrule Humphrey's Executor, stripping job protections for FTC, NLRB, and EEOC commissioners in a ruling due by late June.
All six conservative Supreme Court justices signaled at oral argument that they are prepared to strip independent agency commissioners of protection against at-will presidential removal, with a ruling expected by late June that could dismantle or severely curtail the 1935 precedent in *Humphrey's Executor v. United States* [1]. The case, *Trump v. Slaughter*, centers on President Trump's removal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, and a companion case, *Trump v. Cook*, is expected to address a narrower carve-out for the Federal Reserve [1].
The dispute reached the Supreme Court after Slaughter challenged her removal, invoking *Humphrey's Executor*, which has shielded commissioners at the FTC, NLRB, MSPB, EEOC, and dozens of other multi-member independent agencies from dismissal except for cause [1]. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the Court that the president must hold near-absolute removal authority over any official exercising executive power, a position rooted in unitary executive theory [1]. The justices heard oral argument in December 2025, and the case remains pending before the full Court in Washington [2].
The significance of the pending ruling is structural. *Humphrey's Executor* has served for nine decades as the constitutional foundation for the modern independent regulatory state [1]. Overruling it, or limiting it sharply, would effectively convert the heads of major regulatory agencies into at-will employees subject to direct presidential control, altering enforcement priorities across every sector those agencies oversee, from securities and labor markets to consumer protection and civil rights enforcement [1]. The Court's liberal justices, including Justice Elena Kagan, warned at argument that the ruling would hand the executive branch unchecked authority over the regulatory apparatus [1].
The companion case signals that at least some carve-out may survive. *Trump v. Cook* involves the Federal Reserve, and observers expect the Court to preserve limited insulation for the Fed, reflecting the institution's distinct monetary policy function and longstanding congressional design [1]. Whether any other agencies receive similar treatment remains unresolved pending the opinion.
The ruling will arrive before the Court's term concludes in late June [2]. Regulated industries, agency practitioners, and congressional oversight committees are monitoring the decision, which legal analysts describe as among the most consequential separation-of-powers rulings in nearly a century [1].
—