Trump v. Slaughter Explained: The Case That Ended Independent Agencies

For ninety years, "independent agency" meant something specific: an agency whose leaders could not be fired by the president except for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. That protection was the whole architecture. Five commissioners, staggered terms, no more than three from one party, removable only for cause — that one clause, reprinted across agency after agency, is what "independence" was made of. On June 29, 2026, in Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held that the clause is unconstitutional as applied to the Federal Trade Commission. The case was decided 6-3. The Court didn't soften Humphrey's Executor, the 1935 decision that made the clause enforceable. It overruled Humphrey's by name and said it had been wrong the day it was decided.

Rebecca Slaughter was confirmed to the FTC in 2018 unanimously — nominated by Donald Trump because the FTC statute required members from both parties and she filled the Democratic seat. In March 2025, Trump fired her. The termination letter didn't allege inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. It said her service was "inconsistent with my administration's priorities." He fired the commission's other Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, the same week — leaving a body Congress built to be bipartisan with two commissioners, both from the president's party. Slaughter sued. The Supreme Court has now said all of that is constitutional. The FTC's for-cause protection is gone. So is the general category of "independent agency" as a distinct constitutional structure. This is the wall — Loper Bright limited what agencies can decide, Jarkesy limited how they can adjudicate, and Slaughter limits who controls the people doing both.

The doctrinal move is the elimination of the "quasi-executive" category. Humphrey's Executor had held that the FTC could be protected from at-will removal because it exercised "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" power rather than executive power. That distinction is what let Congress build agencies that made rules like a little legislature and decided cases like a little court, insulated from the president. Chief Justice Roberts's majority opinion in Slaughter borrows a line from mid-century Justice Robert Jackson — not the current Justice Jackson — and makes it the rule: "When an agency 'executes' a congressional mandate against private parties, it exercises executive power — no ifs, ands, or quasis about it." Every rule the FTC writes, every investigation it opens, every in-house adjudication it runs — under the new framework, all of that is executive power, the president holds all the executive power under Article II, and the president therefore has to be able to fire the officers wielding it. The unitary executive theory that had been building in judicial conservatism for decades is now the governing rule, though the majority never uses that phrase and instead presents its conclusion as what Article II always meant.

The majority's historical argument runs through what it calls "the Decision of 1789" — the First Congress's debate over whether the Senate had to sign off on the removal of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The First Congress said no, and the majority treats that as a founding-era settlement of Article II removal power that binds the country today. Justice Sotomayor's dissent points out that the 1789 debate settled a much narrower question — whether the Senate participated in removal — not whether Congress could ever condition removal on cause. Those are different questions. The dissenters emphasize that the members of the First Congress didn't even agree on why they were doing what they were doing, and that treating a vote like that as a clear constitutional command reads more into it than the record supports. The Constitution's text itself never actually addresses who holds the removal power. The majority's argument is that Article II gives it to the president. The dissent's is that Article I gives Congress the power to structure the offices it creates, and that structuring includes removal conditions.

The stare decisis fight is the sharpest part of the case. In the ninety years between Humphrey's and Slaughter, the Supreme Court blessed the Humphrey's result — not just the rationale, but the specific FTC-style structure — seven times over. Wiener in 1958 read a for-cause protection into a statute that didn't contain one. Morrison v. Olson in 1988 upheld for-cause protection for an executive officer 7-1, with only Justice Scalia in dissent. Mistretta in 1989 blessed the Sentencing Commission's for-cause structure. Free Enterprise Fund in 2010 struck a double layer of for-cause protection but explicitly preserved Humphrey's. Seila Law in 2020 and Collins in 2021 struck for-cause protection for single-director agencies but both wrote that the FTC-style multimember expert commission was still good law. The Sotomayor dissent argues that Congress and successive administrations built the federal regulatory state on a doctrine the Court had just affirmed by name, over and over. The majority's response is that the reliance interest is the constitutional injury: you cannot claim reliance on an arrangement the Court is now holding was always unconstitutional. Sotomayor's language on this is unusually direct — she writes that the majority "gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted." She closes with a line aimed directly at the majority's own institutional role: "Perhaps worst of all, the Court today forgets its place."

The reach of the holding is where the case gets interesting. The Court says the FTC is not a close case — it makes rules, investigates, brings enforcement actions, runs in-house adjudications, and sues in federal court, and all of that is the "heartland" of executive power. But the opinion leaves some edges open. It says not every office Congress creates necessarily carries executive power, citing Buckley v. Valeo. It flags the Federal Reserve as different because of the historical tradition of the First and Second Banks. And it flags tenure protections for judges of non-Article III courts — pointing specifically to the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims, both of which sit somewhat outside the executive branch. What the opinion conspicuously does not carve out is administrative law judges. That silence is loud. The double-shield structure that has historically insulated ALJs — the ALJ removable only for good cause established through the Merit Systems Protection Board, whose own members had tenure protection — depends on the MSPB's independence, and the MSPB is one of the entities the Slaughter logic directly threatens. Free Enterprise Fund had already held that double for-cause layers are unconstitutional. Whether single-layer ALJ protection survives is the next question this line of cases will answer.

The Federal Reserve carve-out came in a companion case decided the same day, Trump v. Cook. The two decisions were released simultaneously — a departure from the Court's normal practice — specifically to prevent markets from panicking during whatever hours would have separated one from the other. Lisa Cook was fired by the president in August 2025 — the first Federal Reserve governor in the Fed's 111-year history to be fired — with the stated reason being an allegation of mortgage fraud on paperwork predating her Fed service. Under Slaughter's logic, if the Fed exercises executive power, Cook should have been removable at will and the case should have ended there. Justice Thomas would have gone that way. The majority didn't. Roberts wrote Cook also — 5-4, with the Slaughter dissenters joining Roberts and Kavanaugh — holding that Cook wins because "for cause" has to mean something, and the president's reading "would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment." The Court sheltered the Fed on historical grounds specifically, tracing its independence to the First and Second Banks of the United States going back to Hamilton. Not a functional exception, a historical one. The pairing is the tell. Roberts writes both opinions the same day. In one, "for cause" collapses into at-will employment. In the other, the Court refuses to let it. The Fed didn't survive on a principle that scales. It survived because it's the Fed — and because five justices could picture what would happen to the bond market if they got it wrong.

Cook's win is real but partial. The opinion is preliminary — the Court holds that if the president wants to remove her, he has to give her notice of the evidence, a genuine chance to respond, and cause with some nexus to her fitness for office, rather than pretext. Do all that, and he can try again. Justice Barrett's dissent reads the majority as trying to block Trump from re-firing Cook over the mortgage allegation at all, and accuses the majority of papering over what it's actually doing. So the size of Cook's win is itself contested. What's uncontested is that the Fed governor retains some protection — Cook is entitled to process, and the courts will police whether the process is real. Every other independent-agency official the same morning is not. As Gwen puts it on the episode: "not nothing" is now the most protection anyone in the federal government has against being fired.

The vote math is where the whole ledge is visible. Six justices end general agency independence in Slaughter. Five preserve independence for one institution in Cook. Roberts and Kavanaugh are in both majorities. Justice Barrett, in her Cook dissent, points directly at the tension: Slaughter announces what she reads as a categorical rule — executive power belongs to the president, no exceptions — and then Cook creates an exception "sanctioned by history." How can history support both a categorical rule and a carveout? "The Court does not say." Justice Gorsuch, from the Slaughter majority side, raises what might be the harder question. Congress delegated not just enforcement power but legislative and judicial power to independent agencies, on the premise that those agencies were insulated. That premise is now gone. Would Congress have delegated so much rule-making, adjudicative, and enforcement authority if it had known the president would end up controlling all of it? Gorsuch calls it a "ratchet effect": power Congress delegated by simple majority may now take a veto-proof supermajority to retrieve. The bargain Congress thought it was striking is not the bargain it got.

Rebecca Slaughter loses her case and does not get her FTC seat back. Lisa Cook keeps her Fed governorship, at least for now. Two officers fired by the same president in the same year, opposite results, and the line between them is the historical pedigree of the institution they sat on. The remaining check — the one the Cook decision preserved for Cook specifically — is judicial review of whether the executive followed the procedures the law requires. That check is what the next major decision of the term, Mullin v. Doe, then narrows. Slaughter takes away the check inside the agency. Mullin narrows the check outside it. Together they define the architecture for what administrative law looks like going forward.

Listen Now

Spotify | Apple Podcasts | Listen on our site

What We Cover

The facts of Rebecca Slaughter's firing and why the FTC's bipartisan structure made her termination unlike an ordinary personnel dispute
Why 15 U.S.C. § 41's for-cause removal clause — "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" — has been the template for every independent agency Congress built for ninety years
The elimination of the "quasi-executive" category and what it means for every agency that combines rulemaking with in-house adjudication
The unitary executive theory in operation, without the majority ever using the phrase — Article II gives all executive power to one president, and executive power includes removal
The Decision of 1789 as the majority's founding-era anchor — and why the dissent argues it settled a much narrower question about Senate involvement
The stare decisis fight: how the Court had blessed the Humphrey's Executor structure by name seven times, and how the majority answered the reliance argument
Justice Sotomayor's dissent — the "power unknown even to the English Crown" language and the direct accusation that the Court "forgets its place"
Why the Court's reasoning is wider than its holding, and what that means for the ALJ protection question the opinion conspicuously did not address
How the double-shield structure for ALJs — good-cause removal reviewed by the Merit Systems Protection Board — is now functionally collapsing because MSPB member tenure protection falls under the same logic
Why the Trump v. Cook companion decision was released the same morning — a departure from normal practice designed to prevent markets from panicking between one release and the other
The Federal Reserve carve-out: preserved on historical grounds tracing to the First and Second Banks of the United States, and only because the Court could picture what the alternative would do to the bond market
Why Cook's win is partial: process protection rather than substantive immunity, and how Justice Barrett reads the majority as doing more than it admits
Justice Barrett's Cook dissent asking how history can support both a categorical rule and a carveout — and how the Court declined to say
Justice Gorsuch's "ratchet effect" concurrence in Slaughter: what Congress delegated on the assumption of independence — legislative, adjudicative, and enforcement authority — may now take a supermajority to retrieve
Why judicial review is the check that remains once independence is gone — and why Mullin v. Doe, decided in the same term, immediately narrows it

Full Transcript

[Transcript]

Related Guides

The Removal Power — The doctrinal foundation Slaughter just rewrote. This guide covers the removal-power line from Myers through Humphrey's and the more recent narrowing cases that led to this decision.
Independent vs. Executive Agencies — The distinction Slaughter substantially collapsed. The category still exists as a matter of history and structure, but the removal-protection basis for it is now largely gone outside the Federal Reserve.
Who Decides: ALJs vs. Non-ALJs — The double-shield structure protecting administrative law judges depends on the MSPB, whose own independence Slaughter directly threatens. This is the next tenure-protection question the Court will face.