Supreme Court Expands Trump's Power to Fire Federal Officials While Shielding the Federal Reserve
By Saqib S. Qureshi
Senior Political & Global Affairs Analyst
WASHINGTON — In one of the most consequential constitutional rulings in decades, the US Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded President Donald Trump's authority over the federal government by overturning a 91-year-old legal precedent that had protected leaders of independent federal agencies from being dismissed at a president's discretion.
At the same time, the court drew a clear line around one of America's most powerful economic institutions—the Federal Reserve—temporarily blocking Trump's effort to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook and signaling that the nation's central bank occupies a unique constitutional position.
The twin rulings represent one of the biggest judicial victories of Trump's second presidency while also demonstrating that the conservative-majority court is still prepared to limit executive authority when it believes broader economic stability is at risk.
A 91-Year-Old Precedent Falls
The court's most significant decision came in Trump v. Slaughter, where a 6-3 conservative majority ruled that Trump had the constitutional authority to dismiss Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter despite federal law stating FTC commissioners could only be removed "for cause."
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that agencies exercising executive authority must ultimately remain accountable to the president.
In doing so, the court formally overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)—one of the most influential constitutional precedents in modern American government. That ruling had protected the independence of dozens of federal regulatory agencies for nearly a century.
Why Humphrey's Executor Mattered
For generations, Humphrey's Executor served as the legal foundation for independent agencies such as:
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
- Merit Systems Protection Board
Presidents could appoint commissioners—but generally could not remove them simply because they disagreed with administration policy.
Monday's ruling fundamentally changes that constitutional balance.
Roberts: Executive Power Belongs to the President
Chief Justice Roberts rejected the idea that Congress could continue shielding executive officials from presidential control.
Writing for the majority, Roberts argued that officials exercising executive authority must remain answerable to the elected president, reinforcing the Constitution's separation of powers.
The ruling strengthens what legal scholars call the "unitary executive" theory—the view that the president should exercise broad control over the executive branch.
Liberal Justices Warn of a Historic Shift
The court's three liberal justices issued a sharp dissent.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the decision could fundamentally alter the structure of the federal government by weakening independent oversight bodies created by Congress.
She argued the ruling could shift enormous regulatory authority directly into presidential hands and upset constitutional checks and balances that have existed for decades.
Why the Federal Reserve Was Different
Although Trump won broad authority over independent agencies, he suffered an important setback in a separate case involving Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Cook should remain in office while legal proceedings continue because Trump failed to provide the due process required before attempting to remove her.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that simply announcing Cook's dismissal on social media was insufficient under federal law.
Instead, she must receive formal notice, an opportunity to respond and judicial review before any removal can occur.
Why Wall Street Was Watching Closely
The Federal Reserve is unlike any other federal agency.
It controls US interest rates, influences inflation, oversees monetary policy and affects financial markets around the world.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that allowing presidents to dismiss Fed governors without meaningful legal safeguards could create uncertainty capable of destabilizing both the American and global economies.
Economists have long argued that central bank independence is essential to maintaining investor confidence and preventing political interference in monetary policy.
Another Blow for Trump—Then Another Victory
Monday's decisions produced a mixed day for Trump.
Alongside expanding his executive authority, the Supreme Court also:
- Declined to hear Trump's appeal in the E. Jean Carroll case, leaving a $5 million judgment against him intact.
- Upheld state laws allowing certain mail-in ballots arriving after Election Day to be counted if mailed on time, rejecting Republican arguments challenging those voting procedures.
SCN Analysis | The Biggest Expansion of Presidential Power in Nearly a Century
The ruling is about much more than one FTC commissioner.
It reshapes the relationship between the White House and the federal bureaucracy.
For decades, independent agencies operated with significant insulation from partisan politics because Congress intentionally limited presidential removal powers.
Monday's decision dramatically shifts that balance toward the executive branch.
Future presidents—Republican or Democrat—could now gain far greater influence over regulatory agencies that oversee competition policy, labor disputes, communications, transportation safety and numerous other sectors.
At the same time, the court deliberately preserved the Federal Reserve's special status, signaling that monetary policy remains different from ordinary executive administration.
Legal scholars say the two decisions together establish a new constitutional framework:
- Most independent regulatory agencies may now face greater presidential control.
- The Federal Reserve, at least for now, remains protected because of its unique economic role.