The US Supreme Court has delivered a landmark ruling that significantly expands the powers of the American President, allowing for the dismissal of independent agency chiefs without cause. This seismic shift in constitutional law – effectively overturning nearly nine decades of precedent – has sent shockwaves through Washington DC, sparking widespread concern among lawyers, labour experts, and consumer advocates.
The decision, which emerged from the Trump v Slaughter case, was hailed as a "big win" by former President Donald Trump on social media. However, many in the US have expressed alarm at the implications of this ruling, predicting far-reaching consequences for democratic governance. Stephen Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown Law, described the judgement as "enormously important", warning of its potentially devastating impact on the functioning of government long after Trump's presidency.
The roots of this pivotal decision lie in former President Trump's actions during his previous term. He dismissed several leaders of independent agencies, including Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Rebecca Slaughter, a Federal Trade Commission commissioner, without cause other than their "continued service... inconsistent with [the Trump] administration's priorities." This move prompted the Supreme Court to intervene, effectively overturning the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which had established that the US Constitution did not grant the President "illimitable power of removal".
This new ruling directly contradicts a landmark case initiated by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, when he attempted to remove Republican FTC commissioner William Humphrey. Gary DiBianco, co-founder of Lawyers for Good Government, highlighted this shift, stating that the decision "abandons nearly a century of settled constitutional understanding and replaces it with a loyalty test."
The implications are far-reaching: critics warn that the judgement could grant future Presidents substantially greater control over independent agencies, which are designed to operate with a degree of autonomy. These bodies enforce regulations and protect public interests impartially – but now face the risk of being subject to presidential whim. Rachel Rossi, president of Alliance for Justice, has warned that this decision "could make an authoritarian president even more authoritarian", while Michael Sozan of the Center for American Progress suggested it "further eroded" key guardrails on presidential power.