Supreme Court Weighs Expanding Trump’s Executive Power Case/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Supreme Court is reviewing a decades-old precedent that limits a president’s ability to fire independent agency officials. Trump-backed efforts seek to overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, aligning with a broader push for expanded executive power. The outcome could reshape presidential authority and the role of federal agencies.
Presidential Power Expansion Quick Looks
- Supreme Court to hear case challenging limits on presidential firing power.
- At issue: Whether Trump can remove leaders of independent agencies at will.
- The case centers around FTC official Rebecca Slaughter’s removal.
- 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision currently limits such firings.
- Court’s conservative majority signals openness to overturning precedent.
- Trump has already removed several agency heads since early 2025.
- Justices will also consider if courts can reinstate fired officials.
- Fed Governor Lisa Cook’s role may hinge on this decision.
- Legal scholars and historians question the unitary executive theory.
- A ruling is expected to define executive power boundaries for decades.
Deep Look: Supreme Court Considers Overturning Key Check on Presidential Power
WASHINGTON — In a potentially historic test of executive authority, the Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday that could overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting a president’s power to remove leaders of independent federal agencies. The case stems from President Donald Trump’s second-term efforts to assert broad control over the federal bureaucracy, including the dismissal of agency heads previously shielded by law.
At the heart of the case is the 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which restricted the president’s ability to fire commissioners of independent regulatory agencies without cause. Now, Trump’s legal team and the Justice Department argue that ruling was wrongly decided — and that presidents should have unfettered authority to dismiss executive branch officials at will.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who has steered the conservative-dominated court for nearly two decades, has led the judiciary in steadily eroding limits on executive power. The court’s actions have already allowed Trump to remove officials from the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. Only Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Shira Perlmutter, a copyright official, have remained in office despite dismissal efforts.
Revisiting the “Unitary Executive” Doctrine
The case represents a major test of the unitary executive theory — a constitutional interpretation championed by conservative legal scholars and former Justice Antonin Scalia. This theory holds that the president controls all executive power, including the authority to remove subordinate officials.
In 2020, the court advanced this theory by allowing Trump to remove the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Chief Justice Roberts wrote then that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception.”
And in its 2024 decision granting Trump immunity from prosecution for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the court placed firing power among the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authorities — placing it out of Congress’s reach.
Now, in what may be its boldest step yet, the court could dismantle the Humphrey’s Executor precedent altogether.
The specific case under review concerns Rebecca Slaughter, a former FTC commissioner fired by Trump. Her lawyers argue that protections for agency officials serve a constitutional function and align with U.S. historical practices. Legal scholars and historians backing Slaughter have filed briefs urging the court to retain the precedent.
Historians Dispute the Conservative Interpretation
While the conservative legal movement champions the unitary executive theory, some originalist scholars are urging caution. Caleb Nelson, a respected constitutional scholar and former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, argues that historical evidence on presidential removal power is “far more equivocal” than the court’s current trajectory suggests.
Jane Manners, a legal historian at Fordham University, noted that early American history does not clearly support unlimited removal powers.
“We filed briefs to provide the court with historical context, but I’m not holding my breath,” she said, expressing concern that ideological motivations could override evidence.
Legal Ramifications for Federal Institutions
A key question is whether courts can reinstate officials found to be wrongly terminated. Justice Neil Gorsuch has previously opined that fired officials may be entitled to compensation, but not to regain their positions. That distinction could determine the fate of Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve governor who remains in office but faces legal uncertainty about her future.
The court is set to hear separate arguments in January 2026 about Cook’s status while her lawsuit continues. While Trump has called for her removal over mortgage fraud allegations — which she denies — the court has suggested the Fed may be treated differently than other agencies due to its economic role.
The potential upheaval from a ruling granting Trump and future presidents sweeping removal power could dramatically change how federal agencies operate. Critics warn it would politicize bodies meant to function independently of short-term political pressures, particularly in areas like monetary policy, labor rights, and consumer protection.
Conservative Momentum Builds
The Justice Department, now aligned with Trump’s second-term priorities, has made clear its view that Humphrey’s Executor is obsolete. Solicitor General D. John Sauer bluntly stated in a court filing, “Humphrey’s Executor was always egregiously wrong.”
The case reflects broader efforts by Trump and his allies to consolidate presidential control over the federal government — a shift that began during his first term and has accelerated during his second. From immigration policy to executive immunity, the Supreme Court has largely sided with expanded presidential discretion under Roberts’ leadership.
As the justices prepare to hear arguments on Monday, the decision they reach could mark a decisive moment in the balance of power between the presidency, Congress, and the federal bureaucracy. If Humphrey’s Executor is overturned, it would signal a new era of presidential dominance over federal agencies, reshaping governance in the U.S. for generations.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.