Supreme Court Hands Trump Power to Fire Regulators, Overturning 90-Year Precedent – But Protects Fed Chief
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump can fire the heads of most independent federal agencies at will, overturning a 1935 legal precedent that had shielded them from political dismissal. However, the court carved out a major exception by protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve, blocking Trump from firing Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
The rulings create a split in how the federal government operates. On one side, the court said the president now has broad power to remove officials from agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) without cause [184987][185280]. This overturns the "Humphrey’s Executor" precedent, which had protected independent agency leaders for nearly 90 years [185280][185166]. The case began when Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, who sued arguing the law protected her job. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the president has the authority to fire most federal officials [185280][185166].
On the other side, the court upheld a specific law that prevents the president from firing Federal Reserve board members at will. In a separate ruling, the justices blocked Trump’s attempt to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook, affirming that such officials serve fixed terms and can only be removed for specific reasons [184987][184805][184851]. The decision preserves the Fed’s ability to set monetary policy without political pressure, a key factor in managing inflation and employment [184851][184806].
Legal experts say the rulings reshape the balance of power between the White House and agencies designed to operate without direct political control [184987][185046]. The Fed remains insulated from immediate removal, while other regulators—such as those overseeing consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, and communications—now face greater vulnerability to political pressure [184806][184965]. Critics warn this could make regulators less independent and more subject to a "loyalty test" [185166].
For consumers, the practical impact may include weaker enforcement against deceptive lending or hidden fees, as the FTC’s power to fine companies for unfair practices is also restricted [185296]. The decisions were split along ideological lines, with conservative justices in the majority [185296].