The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Thursday, November 12, in Trump v. Slaughter, upholding the president's authority to fire members of federal executive boards and allowing President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a member of the Federal Trade Commission who was appointed by President Joe Biden.

Source: Associated Press

The decision is one of the most consequential of the term for the balance of power in Washington. For more than 90 years, commissioners of independent federal agencies such as the FTC could be removed only for cause — inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. The court held that statutory protection unconstitutional: FTC commissioners are now removable by the president at will.

Source: IAPP analysis of the judgment

A 90-year-old shield falls

The ruling overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 case in which the Supreme Court stopped President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing a member of the FTC. That precedent had anchored the independence of the modern regulatory state ever since: Congress designed agencies such as the FTC to be run by commissioners of both parties, serving fixed terms, partly insulated from day-to-day presidential politics. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said the 1935 decision has not “withstood the test of time.”

Roberts placed the court's reasoning squarely on the president's constitutional role. Board members who wield executive power, he wrote, serve under the president, not alongside him: “These officers were to serve as envoys of the President, not his equals. They 'ought to be considered as the assistants or deputies of the Chief Magistrate.'” The opinion is the fullest statement yet of the unitary-executive theory — the idea that all executive power in the federal government is vested in the president personally.

The dissent: “a power unknown even to the English Crown”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. In their view, the Constitution left the structure of agencies like the FTC and other executive boards to Congress, which deliberately chose to give commissioners a measure of independence. Sotomayor's dissent was blunt: “The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted, elevating him above his once coequal branches by transforming a duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.”

White House celebrates a “historic” decision

The White House hailed the ruling within hours. White House counsel Will Scharf, speaking at an event hosted by the Federalist Society on Thursday, called Slaughter “an immensely important case that I think corrected very, very poor and quite ancient precedent,” praised Roberts for a “masterful” job in establishing the unitary-executive theory, and added: “I was proud that we, as the White House and obviously the Department of Justice, got to play a role in correcting that historic constitutional wrong.” Solicitor General John Sauer, who argued the case for the administration, said: “It's hard to overstate the importance of Slaughter. Slaughter is an enormous historic decision. It matters for the structure of our government and it matters for the preservation of our liberties going forward.” Scharf also made clear the administration reads the ruling as a governing philosophy: “We have a very energetic executive in President Trump now. We want energy in the executive, always.”

Source: Associated Press

The Federal Reserve exception

The justices did not, however, endorse an unlimited firing power. In Trump v. Cook, decided alongside Slaughter, the court rejected presidential authority to fire members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. Roberts wrote that the Federal Reserve exists as an agency with long-standing authority apart from the president, which prevents its members from being removed the same way. The Cook fight is not over: in October the president announced a committee to investigate Fed Governor Lisa Cook, whom Trump has previously accused of mortgage fraud — an allegation Cook has repeatedly denied. Trump wrote on social media in October: “As president, it is my job to ensure the laws are faithfully executed, including by firing subordinates who cannot be trusted to tell the truth and follow the law.” Any further effort to remove Cook could bring the question back before the justices.

Ripples beyond Washington

The practical effect reaches well past one commissioner's job. The FTC is the federal government's main consumer-protection and competition enforcer — the agency that polices deceptive advertising, data abuses and scams, including the fraud schemes that routinely target immigrant families and new businesses. Its commissioners now serve at the president's pleasure, which means enforcement priorities at the FTC — and, by the logic of the ruling, at other independent boards — can change with the White House. The judgment is also being read in Europe: the European Union's adequacy decision for the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework expressly relied on the FTC's statutory protection against removal, and the European Data Protection Board has asked the European Commission to assess how Slaughter affects the framework. Privacy activist Max Schrems argues the loss of structural independence undermines a central element of that adequacy decision. The ruling did not remove the FTC's enforcement powers, privacy expertise or its ability to act on violations.