(WASHINTON) — For more than 100 years, independent government agencies have regulated American monetary policy and stock trades, transportation systems and election campaigns, consumer product safety and broadcast licenses all free from direct political interference and supervision by the White House.
A major case before the Supreme Court on Monday could upend that tradition and dramatically transform the federal government, eliminating a spirit of bipartisanship and policy continuity that Congress had intended to instill in key areas of American life when it created the agencies.
At issue is President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the Federal Trade Commission on grounds that her service is “inconsistent with the administration’s priorities.” She was appointed to a seven-year term in 2023.
Lower courts have held that Slaughter’s termination was illegal since federal law stipulates a president may only remove a commissioner for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The for-cause removal protection was intended to insulate the FTC from politics.
Trump argues the arrangement is unconstitutional and that a president must have full control over the leadership of government bodies that set policies and enforce regulations.
If he prevails, presidents could win unfettered power to terminate members of independent agencies at-will, which in turn could mark the end of their independence.
“Congress designed these agencies, like the FTC, like the [Federal Reserve], like [Securities and Exchange Commission], the whole panoply of independent agencies to have bipartisan voices so that there could be accountability and transparency,” Slaughter said in an interview with ABC News earlier this year.
Some two dozen organizations, including the Federal Election Commission, Federal Communications Commission and National Transportation Safety Board, are also made up of members appointed by presidents for a fixed term and protected by law from removal for purely political or policy reasons.
Trump has also tried to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and Federal Reserve — all of whom have challenged their removals in court.
The Constitution “vests all ‘the executive Power’ in the president and requires him to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” Trump’s attorneys argue in their brief to the high court, quoting from Article II. They insist the language inherently includes power to remove “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.”
In a unanimous 1935 decision, however, the Supreme Court upheld the design of independent agencies, concluding their role as quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial bodies makes them distinct from executive branch departments and not subjected to a president’s whims.
Several members of the current Supreme Court have publicly indicated they believe the ruling should be overturned or at least not applied to this case.
“I think we all expect the Court to give the president a lot more control over these so-called independent administrative agencies and bring back some political accountability within the executive branch,” said Sarah Isgur, SCOTUSblog editor and an ABC News legal contributor.
“We also have to hope that will force Congress to stop delegating vast and vague powers to the executive branch and these agencies once they’re under his direction,” she added.
The implications for the public could be significant, some legal experts say.
“It may influence how agencies conduct investigations, enforce regulations and oversee markets, while introducing uncertainty into regulatory oversight that affects investment and long-term planning,” said Varu Chilakamarri, a former Justice Department attorney and appellate litigator with the law firm K&L Gates.
In other words, giving a president full control of independent agency leadership will allow him to align agency actions with the administration’s agenda — bolstering power of the executive branch while opening the door to significant policy changes following each presidential election.
The FTC currently has no Democratic members on the five-member panel after Trump dismissed Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, in March.
In September, the Supreme Court rejected Slaughter’s bid to remain on the commission while the litigation is pending. The 6-3 decision, with all three liberal justices dissenting, signals that the likely outcome of her case will be in Trump’s favor, analysts said.
The Supreme Court’s decision will also determine the fate of Cathy Harris, a Trump-fired member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne Wilcox, a Trump-fired member of the National Labor Relations Board, both of whom are also contesting the president’s actions on grounds identical to Slaughter’s.
One independent agency not directly implicated in the case: the Federal Reserve. While removal protections for members of the central bank’s board of governors are similar to those at the FTC and other agencies, the justices have made clear in their view that the bank is different.
“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the Supreme Court wrote in an unsigned opinion in May.
Trump’s unprecedented attempt to remove a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors, Lisa Cook, will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in a separate case next month.
A decision in both cases is expected before the end of the court’s term in June 2026.
Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
