President Donald Trump’s push to reshape the federal government just gained a powerful ally in the Supreme Court.
The court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, signaled strong support on Monday for Trump’s authority to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause, despite a 1914 law restricting such removals, NBC News reported.
Trump dismissed Slaughter, a Democrat, along with another Democratic appointee in March, leaving the FTC with only two Republican commissioners out of five. This move aligns with his broader agenda to curb the influence of agencies insulated from direct presidential control.
During Monday’s oral arguments, conservative justices sharply questioned the foundation of independent agencies. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling, which upheld removal restrictions, “poorly reasoned,” hinting at a readiness to overturn it.
Chief Justice John Roberts piled on, labeling the same ruling a “dried husk” that no longer fits the FTC’s expanded executive role. He argued the agency’s evolution demands greater presidential oversight, not less.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh drove the point home, stressing that these agencies wield “massive power over individual liberty and billion-dollar industries” without direct accountability to voters. His words cut to the heart of why unchecked bureaucracies rankle those who value elected leadership.
Since taking office in January, Trump has moved aggressively to reshape federal agencies, firing members without cause across multiple bodies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His administration even extended this to entities outside the executive branch, such as the Library of Congress.
Last week, Trump’s influence reached the U.S. Institute of Peace, where he replaced board members and added his name to the sign, despite ongoing legal challenges. An appeals court backed his authority there, showing judicial momentum in his favor.
This pattern reflects a deeper mission to dismantle what many see as an unaccountable deep state, a sentiment echoed by business allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which filed a brief supporting the administration. Their backing underscores how regulatory overreach often stifles economic freedom.
The court’s liberal justices stood firm against Trump’s position, defending the structure of independent agencies. Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned the government’s stance risks destroying “the structure of government” by stripping Congress of its power to shield certain bodies from political whims.
Meanwhile, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on the boundaries of presidential power, asking about the “limits of your logic.” Her concern hints at possible carve-outs for entities like the Federal Reserve, which faces separate litigation.
The Federal Reserve case, involving member Lisa Cook, already saw the court suggest in a May order that its unique structure might warrant different treatment. Arguments in that dispute are set for January, potentially drawing a line Trump cannot cross.
A ruling for Trump could upend decades of precedent, affecting not just the FTC but a host of agencies with similar removal protections. It would hand presidents sweeping control over regulatory bodies, aligning with the unitary executive theory embraced by Trump’s legal team.
This shift resonates with those who see federal bureaucracies as too often divorced from the will of the people. If agencies can’t be reined in by the elected executive, the balance of power tilts toward unelected technocrats, a setup ripe for abuse.
The Supreme Court’s apparent lean toward Trump marks a pivotal moment in the fight over who truly governs. While liberal voices warn of overreach, the conservative majority seems poised to restore what they view as constitutional clarity, ensuring the president’s authority isn’t undercut by a shadowy fourth branch.