Supreme Court Splits on Removal Power: 6-3 in Slaughter, 5-4 in Cook
In separate decisions issued the same day, the Supreme Court struck down for-cause removal protections for the FTC and similar agencies in a 6-3 ruling (Trump v. Slaughter) while upholding the Federal Reserve's removal protections in a 5-4 ruling (Trump v. Cook). The former largely dismantles independent agency independence, advancing Project 2025's goal of White House control over most regulators; the latter preserves the Fed's unique insulation, creating a two-tier system.
On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued two closely watched rulings reshaping presidential removal power. In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 majority overruled Humphrey's Executor and struck down statutory for-cause protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, SEC, NLRB, and similar agencies. Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion held that the Constitution requires the president to have removal authority over all officers exercising 'executive power,' though the Court explicitly left open the possibility that offices not exercising executive power, like the Federal Reserve, could remain distinct. In a companion case, Trump v. Cook, a separate 5-4 majority upheld the Federal Reserve's for-cause removal provision, citing the Fed's unique historical status and limited executive functions.
These rulings advance a key Project 2025 priority: eliminating independent agency independence for all regulators except those deemed critical to financial elites. The practical effect is immediate: President Trump can now fire FTC commissioners investigating donor antitrust violations, SEC officials probing insider trading, or NLRB members supporting worker organizing—all without cause. The Federal Reserve's insulation protects monetary policy for Wall Street's stability, but every other agency is now subject to political whim. This creates a two-tier system: the Fed's independence is secured by a fragile 5-4 majority, while consumer protection, labor rights, and environmental enforcement are left vulnerable. The Court's subtle language—'executive power' not 'all executive power'—leaves room for future challenges, but the core ruling empowers partisan capture of agencies that affect millions of Americans.
The humanitarian alternative
Congress should immediately pass the Independent Agency Protection Act, which would codify for-cause removal protections for all independent agencies by grounding their authority in Article I legislative powers rather than Article II executive powers. This approach, modeled on the original design of the Federal Trade Commission and upheld in Humphrey's Executor, would require restructuring agencies as congressional instruments exercising delegated legislative, judicial, and executive functions—sidestepping the unitary executive theory entirely.
Additionally, Congress should use its appropriations power to condition funding for any agency that the president fires or attempts to control through removal threats, creating a budgetary check on this newly expanded executive authority. States should also prepare parallel enforcement mechanisms for consumer protection, labor standards, and environmental rules, so that federal regulatory capture doesn't leave gaps in public safeguards.
Falsifiable predictions
What this entry claims will happen, and what data would prove it wrong. The Reckoner revisits these against current reality.
- Within 90 days, the president will fire at least two FTC or SEC commissioners, triggering Senate confirmation fights and legal challenges over the scope of the ruling.
- Congressional Democrats will introduce a bill to restore for-cause removal for all independent agencies within 30 days of the ruling, but it will not pass the Republican-controlled House.
- The ruling will trigger at least three new lawsuits within 60 days challenging specific agency actions on the grounds that they were improperly influenced by removal threats, particularly at the NLRB and FTC.
Original source — excerpted
news The Supreme Court gave Trump new powers, with one telling exception."This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by..."