WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to weigh a sweeping challenge to long-standing rules that shield heads of independent regulatory agencies from being dismissed at will — a fight that dovetails with Donald J. Trump’s aggressive efforts to remove multiple officials appointed to independent bodies.
In a case that could reshape the balance of power in Washington, justices are examining whether the century-old precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) should be overturned — a decision that for decades barred presidents from firing members of certain independent agencies without demonstrable cause.
Last month, the Court allowed the removal of a commissioner from Federal Trade Commission (FTC), appointed under the previous administration, while legal proceedings unfold. That move signals the Court may be ready to embrace an expansive interpretation of presidential authority that critics say could dismantle the independence of regulatory agencies.
Supporters of the shift argue it restores constitutional accountability: under the so-called “unitary executive” theory, the president should have full control over the executive branch — including the power to dismiss agency heads for any reason.
But opponents warn the change threatens a core principle of checks and balances. Independent agencies — tasked with regulating banking, consumer protection, labor, trade and more — were deliberately designed by Congress to operate free of partisan swings. Weakening their independence could give undue influence to whichever party controls the White House.
As the legal battle plays out, many eyes are on the Supreme Court’s conservative majority. A verdict overruling Humphrey’s Executor could fundamentally redraw the map of executive power — and permanently tilt the balance between Congress, the courts, and the presidency.
