Supreme Court Ends For-Cause Removal Protections for Members of Independent Federal Agencies and Commissions Such as FERC

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court or Court) issued two companion decisions eliminating for-cause removal protections for commissioners of federal independent agencies—such as FERC—but creating a carveout for members of the Federal Reserve Board. In a 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, holding that the president has the power to remove independent agency commissioners at will. In a related 5-4 decision issued the same day, Trump v. Cook, however, the Court preserved removal protections for governors of the Federal Reserve.

Humphrey’s Executor, decided in 1935, upheld statutory provisions restricting presidential removal of commissioners on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to instances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Two years prior, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had sought the resignation of William Humphrey, an FTC Commissioner, before his term expired. When Humphrey refused to quit, President Roosevelt sent him a letter removing him from the FTC without citing any cause for doing so. Humphrey died shortly thereafter, and his estate sued for Humphrey’s salary it believed it was owed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Humphrey’s estate, explaining that the FTC and other similar independent agencies exercised quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, rather than purely executive functions, and therefore the U.S. Congress could provide tenure protections to preserve the independence of such bodies that prevailed over the president’s ability to remove an officer.

At issue in Slaughter was President Donald J. Trump’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March 2025. President Trump claimed only that her service was “inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities” and proceeded to remove Cook “pursuant to [his] authority under Article II of the Constitution,” without citing any instances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” At issue in Cook was President Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Governor Rebecca Cook in August 2025 due to allegations of mortgage fraud purported to have taken place before Cook joined the Federal Reserve. Similar to the FTC, statutory provisions restrict presidential removal of Federal Reserve governors “for cause.” Both Slaughter and Cook challenged their firings.

In Slaughter, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority to explicitly overturn Humphrey’s Executor in its entirety. Chief Justice Roberts explained that statutory for-cause removal protections violate the separation of powers doctrine because “[t]he FTC unquestionably exercises executive power and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive,” and “[t]o remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the President.” In concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch celebrated the majority for “recognizing that the President is entitled to remove a principal officer who exercises executive power in his name” but urged the Court to “finish the journey” to “restore” legislative and judicial powers vested in administrative agencies to Congress and the courts, respectively. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, warned that the majority “reshapes [the] Government” by transforming “dozens of independent commissions” into “purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands.”

Chief Justice Roberts also wrote for the 5-4 majority in Cook to uphold the constitutionality of statutory for-cause removal protections for Federal Reserve governors. Chief Justice Roberts explained that such protections are consistent with the Founders’ belief that “monetary policy should not be subject to political interference.”  Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson each filed a concurring opinion, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett each filed a dissenting opinion.

The Supreme Court’s full opinion in Slaughter, issued in Case No. 25-332, is available here. The Supreme Court’s full opinion in Cook, issued in Case No. 25A312, is available here.