Supreme Court Considers Trump Push for Agency Firings

Building with columns and statues in front of entrance.

President Trump seeks Supreme Court approval to fire independent agency leaders, potentially upending a 90-year precedent that has protected regulatory independence across the federal government.

Quick Takes

Trump administration argues that presidents should have authority to remove independent regulators who oppose administration policies
Cases involve officials from the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board who were fired but reinstated by lower courts
Supreme Court could overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision that established protections for independent agency leaders
If successful, Trump’s effort would significantly expand presidential power over agencies including the Federal Reserve and FTC
Critics warn the move would create an “earthquake” in government operations and reduce regulatory independence

Constitutional Showdown Over Executive Power

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to grant the president expanded authority to fire leaders of independent regulatory agencies, setting up a major constitutional challenge. The cases involve two officials – Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board – who were removed by President Trump but later reinstated by lower courts while litigation continues. This challenge strikes at the heart of a decades-old system designed to insulate certain agencies from direct political control.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued forcefully for presidential authority in court filings, stating: “This situation is untenable. The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months.”

A 90-Year Precedent Under Scrutiny

At the center of the dispute is the landmark 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established that Congress could create independent agencies whose leaders are protected from presidential removal except for specific causes like misconduct or neglect of duty. This precedent has been the foundation for numerous regulatory bodies that oversee critical aspects of the American economy, from financial markets to communications and labor relations.

Brianne Gorod, an expert cited in court documents, warned: “it would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.”

The Trump administration’s legal argument rests on the “unitary executive theory,” which holds that the Constitution vests all executive power in the president, who should therefore control all executive branch actions. Supporters contend this aligns with the founders’ intent for clear lines of accountability, while critics argue it would dangerously concentrate power in the presidency and undermine regulatory independence that Congress deliberately established.

Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire independent regulators https://t.co/u44Z8Fty6i

— @AcrossTheCurve (@acrossthecurve) April 9, 2025

Far-Reaching Implications

If the Supreme Court sides with President Trump, the ruling could dramatically reshape the federal bureaucracy. Agencies potentially affected include the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and numerous other bodies with significant regulatory authority. The administration has made clear its desire to replace current leadership with more business-friendly regulators who would reduce government oversight across multiple sectors of the economy.

The judge in Wilcox’s case issued a pointed rebuke of the president’s position, writing that his “interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power — or, more aptly, his aspiration — is flat wrong.” Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has shown increasing skepticism toward administrative agency power in recent years. In 2020, the Court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional due to its single director’s protection from presidential removal.

The current Supreme Court appears potentially receptive to further limiting independent agency authority. Justice Elena Kagan previously dissented in similar cases, highlighting the importance of administrative independence, particularly for financial regulators like the Federal Reserve. However, with a solid 6-3 conservative majority, the Court may be poised to deliver the expanded presidential authority that Trump seeks, fundamentally altering the balance of power in Washington for generations to come.