Supreme Court Rules “Independent” Executive Agencies Unconstitutional
Client Alert | June 29, 2026
Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332 – Decided June 29, 2026
Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that Congress may not restrict the President’s power to remove members of so-called independent executive agencies, overruling Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
“The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested.”
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court
Background:
Congress created the Federal Trade Commission in 1914. The agency is led by five Commissioners, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The Commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms, and no more than three can belong to the same political party. Originally, the FTC primarily issued cease-and-desist orders that courts could then enforce. But its authority has grown significantly. Today, the FTC can impose civil penalties, file civil lawsuits, make substantive rules, and even negotiate with foreign law-enforcement agencies.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the President may remove an FTC commissioner only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 15 U.S.C. § 41. But in March 2025, President Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter for different reasons. Slaughter’s termination letter explained that her service was “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities” and that she was being removed “pursuant to [President Trump’s] authority under Article II of the Constitution.”
Slaughter sued, arguing her removal violated the FTC Act because it was not based on “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed and ordered the government to reinstate Slaughter, reasoning that the Supreme Court’s decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), had already upheld the FTC Act’s removal restrictions. The D.C. Circuit refused to stay the injunction pending appeal, but the Supreme Court granted a stay and agreed to review the district court’s decision.
Issue:
Do the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, should Humphrey’s Executor be overruled?
Court’s Holding:
Yes. The FTC Act’s removal restrictions violate the separation of powers and Humphrey’s Executor is overruled.
What It Means:
- Today’s decision continues the Supreme Court’s recent separation-of-powers jurisprudence by confirming that Congress may not insulate federal officers of multi-member independent agencies that exercise executive power from at-will presidential removal, even when Congress has historically provided “for-cause” protections.
- The Court’s decision emphasizes that agencies exercising executive power—a power vested exclusively in the President by Article II of the Constitution—must remain accountable to the President. Congress may not enact statutes impeding that accountability.
- The Court also recognized that “not all offices created by Congress necessarily come with executive or even sovereign power attached.” Op. 27. The Court expressly declined to consider the constitutionality of tenure protections for other “officials not before us,” including the judges of non-Article III courts, such as the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims. Op. 28. The Court also “left open the possibility” that “some functions traditionally handled outside the Executive Branch,” such as Legislative Branch agencies, may not be subject to presidential at-will removal. Op. 27.
- The Federal Reserve likely is one such office. In a companion opinion in Trump v. Cook, the Court declined to stay an order reinstating a member of the Federal Reserve System Board of Governors who challenged her removal for cause, noting that “any definition of ‘cause’ in [that] context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.” Read about that decision here.
- One consequence of today’s decision may be increased volatility in administrative policy across presidential administrations, as presidents now have broader power to reshape the leadership of formerly independent agencies. For example, the Court’s decision will strengthen presidential control over the FTC’s rulemaking and enforcement agenda, potentially enabling more direct White House influence over the agency’s consumer-protection priorities.
- Justice Gorsuch authored a concurrence in which he observed that today’s decision does not eliminate the vast rulemaking and adjudicatory powers of federal agencies, but instead re-locates those powers in the President. He urged the Court to develop and apply its “many doctrines designed to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers,” including the nondelegation doctrine, the major questions doctrine, due-process and vagueness doctrines, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. These doctrines are likely to be a basis for continued litigation on separation-of-powers issues.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 tdupree@gibsondunn.com |
Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 aho@gibsondunn.com |
Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 jpoon@gibsondunn.com |
Jeffrey B. Wall +1 202.955.8533 jwall@gibsondunn.com |
Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 ltownsend@gibsondunn.com |
Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 bhamburger@gibsondunn.com |
Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 bhubbard@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Administrative Law and Regulatory
| Stuart F. Delery +1 202.955.8515 sdelery@gibsondunn.com |
Eugene Scalia +1 202.955.8673 shenry@gibsondunn.com |
Helgi C. Walker +1 202.887.3599 hwalker@gibsondunn.com |
Related Practice: Consumer Protection
| Gustav W. Eyler +1 202.955.8610 geyler@gibsondunn.com |
Svetlana S. Gans +1 202.955.8657 sgans@gibsondunn.com |
Ashley Rogers +1 214.698.3316 arogers@gibsondunn.com |
This alert was prepared by partner Samuel Eckman and associates Robert Batista and Jessica Kinnamon.
© 2026 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.