The Supreme Court is days away from ruling in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could let the President fire independent agency heads at will and overturn a 90-year precedent.
A ruling is imminent from the U.S. Supreme Court in *Trump v. Slaughter*, a case that could fundamentally restructure the administrative state by eliminating statutory protections that shield members of independent federal agencies from presidential removal [1]. The Court heard oral arguments in January, and observers noted that the conservative majority appeared prepared to overrule, or substantially limit, *Humphrey's Executor v. United States*, the 1935 precedent that permits Congress to restrict the President's authority to fire commissioners and board members of multi-member independent agencies [2].
The case reaches the Court on direct challenge to the for-cause removal protections that govern agencies including the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board [1]. Barbara Slaughter, whose removal from her position prompted the litigation, is the named respondent; President Donald Trump is the petitioner [2]. The case is before the Supreme Court of the United States, and a decision is expected before the current term closes [2].
The substantive stakes are considerable. A ruling for the President would mean that commissioners at the FTC, NLRB, and comparable multi-member bodies could be dismissed at will, without any showing of neglect, malfeasance, or inefficiency, stripping Congress of the longstanding tool it has used to insulate expert agencies from direct executive control [1]. The Court has separately signaled, through a 2025 shadow-docket order, that it views the Federal Reserve as categorically distinct from other independent agencies, suggesting that Fed governors may retain their for-cause protections even if the broader *Humphrey's Executor* framework falls [2]. Legal scholars and practitioners are watching closely to see whether the majority opinion articulates a principled doctrinal basis for that carve-out or leaves the Fed's status unresolved [1].
What comes next depends heavily on the scope of the ruling. A narrow decision could limit removal protections only at agencies with adjudicatory or quasi-legislative functions distinct from those of the Fed; a broader holding could invite immediate litigation at every independent agency whose enabling statute contains a for-cause clause [2]. Agency members across the federal government, along with their counsel, are preparing contingency analysis for either outcome [1].