Supreme Court ruling may result in sharp agency agenda changes

Presidents may remove members of independent federal agencies at will, the US Supreme Court ruled today, reversing nearly a century of precedent and altering how key workplace regulators will operate.

The 6-3 ruling in Trump v Slaughter overturns the Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had allowed Congress to limit the president’s ability to fire commissioners of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

At the center of the case was former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who challenged her 2025 termination after being fired without cause. Lower courts had ruled in her favor; but the Supreme Court reversed those decisions, holding that statutory “for-cause” removal protections violate the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Court reasoning

The Court reasoned that agencies that exercise significant executive power, enforcing and administering dozens of federal laws, must remain accountable to the president. The court’s majority found that the FTC “unquestionably” exercises executive powers and therefore must be under the president’s control.

Employers will need to place less emphasis on agency guidance as a stable compliance foundation and instead anchor policies firmly in federal and state statutory text to ensure consistency and reduce risk.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the president’s authority over the executive branch. “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a sharply worded dissent. She warned that the majority’s ruling “undoes centuries of political practice” and departs from longstanding precedent that allowed Congress to insulate certain agency officials from political pressure.

The ruling’s reach

The decision has immediate implications beyond the FTC. By eliminating protections that shielded commissioners from removal without cause, the ruling opens the door for greater presidential control over agencies traditionally viewed as independent, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The ruling also likely ends fired NLRB member Gwen Wilcox’s court challenge to her dismissal without cause.

A practical effect will be increased political influence on agency agendas. Enforcement priorities at the FTC and other agencies could be more likely to change significantly with every change in administration as presidents gain the ability to replace agency commissioners aligned with prior leadership.

The bottom line for employers and HR for planning compliance is clear. This decision is a major red flag that agency guidance and enforcement positions will be far more volatile and likely to change significantly with each shift in political power. Employers will need to place less emphasis on agency guidance as a stable compliance foundation and instead anchor policies firmly in federal and state statutory text to ensure consistency and reduce risk.