Supreme Court Expands Trump’s Power to Fire Agency Heads, Except Fed Officials
Supreme Court allows Trump to fire independent agency heads except Federal Reserve governors.
Why it matters: This ruling redefines executive authority over federal agencies, increasing presidential control while safeguarding Federal Reserve independence. Legal teams must reassess risks and compliance strategies amid new administrative law dynamics.
- June 29, 2026: Supreme Court overturns 1935's Humphrey's Executor precedent in a 6-3 vote.
- President Trump can remove heads of agencies like the FTC without cause, affecting Democratic appointees FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya.
- A separate 5-4 ruling blocks Trump's bid to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving the Fed's independence.
- Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the Fed’s stability and confidence, maintaining removal protections for its governors.
On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two influential decisions marking a major shift in administrative law. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court overturned Humphrey's Executor (1935), which protected heads of independent regulatory agencies from removal except for cause such as inefficiency or misconduct.
This ruling grants President Trump authority to remove independent agency leaders at will. It specifically impacts the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), enabling dismissal of Democratic appointees like FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya without cause. Previously, their removal required justification tied to performance or misconduct.
Humphrey's Executor established these "for cause" protections to ensure agency independence from casual political interference, maintaining regulatory consistency. The Court's ruling now removes these protections across most independent agencies, significantly expanding presidential oversight.
In a separate 5-4 decision, the Court rejected President Trump's attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Cook, who denied allegations of mortgage fraud cited by Trump, contended the charges were political. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, underscored the necessity of preserving the Federal Reserve's "stability and confidence," rejecting at-will removal for its governors.
Together, these rulings expand presidential removal power broadly, except for the uniquely protected Federal Reserve governors. This creates a clear exception preserving the Fed's autonomy due to its critical role in national economic stability.
Legal professionals in corporations and law firms should anticipate heightened executive influence over regulatory agencies, which may affect agency decision-making and enforcement priorities. The diminished removal protections raise compliance and risk management challenges, demanding vigilant monitoring of federal regulatory developments.
The decisions invite reflection on administrative agencies' future independence and executives' expanding role in federal governance, posing significant implications for legal risk and regulatory strategy.
By the numbers:
- 6-3 — Supreme Court vote overturning Humphrey's Executor precedent
- 5-4 — Supreme Court vote blocking removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook
- 1935 — Year Humphrey's Executor was originally decided
Yes, but: While the ruling broadens presidential authority, the Federal Reserve remains protected, reflecting judicial caution about destabilizing key economic institutions.
What's next: Legal teams and compliance officers should closely watch how agencies adapt their governance and enforcement policies post-ruling, especially in upcoming federal appointments and removals.