Trump wants Supreme Court to expand his power to fire other federal agency leaders

Thanks, Boomers.

 

Supreme Court cements Trump's power over agencies long considered independent

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday further overturned a 91-year-old precedent that has prevented presidents from removing members of independent agencies at will. The decision represents a significant win for the Trump administration and a major expansion of the president's control over parts of the government once seen as a check on his powers.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court found that President Trump's March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause was lawful.

ince its creation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 1914, Congress has held that commissioners can only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office." Slaughter was presented with no such reason for her removal, only told her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities."

Last summer, a lower court found her firing was unlawful, citing a 1935 landmark decision known as Humphrey's Executor, a case prompted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempted firing of an FTC commissioner over ideological disagreements. The court unanimously held that while the president has the power to remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unlimited power does not extend to agencies like the FTC, whose duties, the court found, "are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative."

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: "Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."

The three liberal justices dissented.

The independence of the Federal Reserve remains intact — for now. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, can remain in her job until litigation is resolved in the lower courts.

A final/near final blow to a 91-year-old precedent
Thursday's decision marks a final blow to Humphrey's Executor.

"If anything more is left of Humphrey's, the Court overrules it," Robert wrote in the majority opinion.

During Trump's first term, the Supreme Court chipped away at the precedent when it let Trump fire the head of another independent agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Rest: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/29/nx-s...t-ftc-independent-agencies-humphreys-executor

 

...but the Federal Reserve is a "quasi-private" entity that gets special treatment and a pass on UET?

 

I don't understand the logic of excepting the Fed. Seems like it applies to the Fed too and they put on a fig leaf to avoid an immediate market reaction.

 

So "quasi-private" overrides "quasi-congressional" which still makes zero sense if UET is to be the law of the land. They already had a conclusion and just played fill in the blanks to get there. When I look at the historical aspect the justices used no logic that strictly applies to it. FTC Act of 1914 vs Federal Reserve Act of 1913...blatant corruption to protect business interest and nothing more.

Clean ****ing house by packing the court to limit the damage as should have been done when Dems had the majority in 2021.

 

This is terrible because there will be another round of musical chairs when a democrat becomes president.

 

We became the most prosperous country in the world with the previous congressional acts in full force during multiple wars. They are hellbent on destroying the New Deal and any remnants no matter the cost to the populace.

This is the price we pay for electing a fool like Trump in the first place. At worst I'll move with my family overseas and point the middle finger to the USA/Texas and it's backwards ass rule of law. Happy 250th!!!

 

Trump did what Putin wanted him to do.

 

The upside is it makes it extremely easy to erase any hint that he ever existed and had the job once we finally 86 47.

Then we'll pack the court and restore pre-Federalist Society take-over precident. It makes a complete circle.

 

If a Democrat ever gets elected again, all the people cheering this will hate that it happened. I can’t begin to understand how people who champion limited govt are ok with this but that intellectually honest ship left port a long time ago.

 

On the positive side, the only way to compete with China is to have a system closer to it

But hey, please don’t elect an idiot (or corrupt, immoral, you know, that stuff) to run the executive. Because that’s one quick way to burn things down as well.

 

Well, this SCOTUS hasn’t failed big businesses. So...

Executive overload over the rules of the market, that’s cool, because big money can shape it through corrupt influence and political buying power.

Executive overload over the stability of money itself, whoa, pump the brakes, because even big money won’t want that level of instability.

 

The guy who scratches his way to the top of the Democratic power base and then wins the presidency and with it all the unchecked executive power that Trump has built is just going to throw all that power away instead of using it himself to remake the country in what he thinks is its best version?

 

Unlimited money in politics will do that, maybe you should run but you appear to be far too reasonable. The principled folks like you maybe that should run don't because it's a too much trouble.

 

Huey Long

 

Lol, I would be eaten alive. I can't even do office politics.

 

Juan after sorting out the pizza orders for the office party

 

Where's LBJ when you need him?