A 90-year precedent fell when the Supreme Court ruled in the Slaughter case that Trump can remove leaders of independent regulatory agencies, sharply expanding presidential control over bodies such as the FTC.
The case arose from Trump’s firing of an FTC commissioner, and the ruling means agencies created by Congress with fixed mandates can now be redirected or weakened by the White House.
The decision appears to preserve some protection for the Federal Reserve, creating a carveout that critics say leaves monetary policy more insulated than antitrust, environmental, food-safety and labor enforcement.
That shift could reshape how agencies police mergers, pollution, workplace rights and other corporate conduct, with broader implications for the independence of the US regulatory state.
How will expanded presidential authority over federal agencies reshape U.S. economic policy and long-term business certainty?
With the Federal Reserve's independence now in question, what safeguards remain to protect the nation's financial stability?
What does the end of 90 years of agency independence mean for the future of non-partisan governance and public service?
Supreme Court’s 6-3 Ruling in Trump v. Slaughter (2026) Ends 91 Years of Agency Independence, Expands Presidential Power
Overview
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a landmark 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, overturning the nearly century-old precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This ruling fundamentally reshapes the federal government by granting the President sweeping new authority to remove leaders of independent federal agencies at will. As a result, presidential power over the federal bureaucracy is significantly expanded, allowing agency heads to be replaced at any time for any reason. The majority opinion, led by Justice Samuel Alito, emphasized that the unitary executive theory requires the President to have ultimate control over the executive branch to ensure accountability and effective governance.