The Supreme Court is expected to rule by July in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could overturn Humphrey's Executor and reshape presidential power over independent agencies.
The Supreme Court has yet to issue its ruling in *Trump v. Slaughter*, a case that will determine whether a president may remove Federal Trade Commission members without cause, with a decision expected before the Court's term closes in late June or early July [1]. Thirty-five cases remain undecided as the term enters its final weeks, and *Trump v. Slaughter* stands among the most consequential still pending [1]. The core question before the Court is whether *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, the 1935 precedent that authorized Congress to limit presidential removal of multi-member commission heads to "good cause," remains valid constitutional law [2].
The case arises from President Donald Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, one of two Democratic commissioners dismissed earlier in the administration [2]. Slaughter challenged her termination in federal court, arguing that the FTC Act's for-cause removal protection shielded her from at-will dismissal. Lower courts ruled in her favor, applying *Humphrey's Executor* as binding precedent [2]. The Trump administration appealed, asking the Court to overrule that decision and hold that Article II vests the president with unilateral removal authority over all principal officers, including those at nominally independent agencies [2].
The stakes extend well beyond the FTC. A ruling that overturns *Humphrey's Executor* would eliminate statutory tenure protections for commissioners and board members across a wide range of independent agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission [1] [2]. The Federal Reserve's governance structure, which insulates its board members from at-will removal, has drawn particular attention from legal scholars and market observers as a potential downstream target of any broad ruling [1]. The Court is also expected to address whether federal courts retain authority to order reinstatement of unlawfully removed officials, a remedy question with immediate practical significance for Slaughter and similarly situated officers [2].
If the Court rules for the administration, Congress would face pressure to reconsider how it structures independent agencies, and the executive branch would gain direct supervisory authority it has not formally held since the New Deal era [2]. If the Court rules for Slaughter and affirms *Humphrey's Executor* in whole or in part, the decision could still narrow the precedent's scope, leaving open future challenges [1]. Practitioners and agency officials across the regulatory spectrum are tracking the docket closely for a decision before the summer recess [1].
—