The U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of a landmark decision that could dramatically reshape the balance of power in Washington. The case, Trump v. Slaughter, centers on former President Donald Trump's attempt to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and could result in the dismantling of protections for dozens of independent federal agencies.
The Case That Could Upend Decades of Precedent
At the heart of the dispute is a legal precedent known as Humphrey's Executor, established by the Supreme Court in 1935. This ruling affirmed that Congress could create "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" agencies whose leaders are protected from being fired by the president without cause. This "for-cause" removal standard was designed to insulate agencies like the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from political pressure, allowing them to make decisions based on expertise rather than presidential whim.
The current case emerged from President Trump's mass purges of Democratic appointees from independent agencies after taking office. One of those officials was FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. She sued, arguing her firing violated the Humphrey's Executor protections. While lower courts sided with Slaughter, the Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled its leanings by allowing her removal to stand while it considered the appeal.
The Rise of the "Unitary Executive" Theory
The legal argument driving the challenge is known as the unitary executive theory. Rooted in a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, it posits that all executive power is vested solely in the president. Proponents argue that because the president must "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," he must have total control over every entity within the executive branch, including the power to fire any official at will.
This theory, which gained traction during the Reagan administration, has found a receptive audience in the current Supreme Court. It was notably advanced in two recent rulings: Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), which stripped the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of for-cause protection, and Trump v. U.S. (2024), which granted presidents broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Justice Samuel Alito, a former Reagan administration lawyer, has been a vocal proponent. "We were strong proponents of the theory of the unitary executive," he said in a 2000 speech, a view he maintains shapes his interpretation of the Constitution.
Consequences for Canadians and Global Stability
Overturning Humphrey's Executor would have immediate and far-reaching consequences. A president could fire officials for refusing to launch politically motivated investigations, issue fines against opponents, approve controversial mergers, or revoke broadcast licenses. The most seismic shift, however, could involve monetary policy at the Federal Reserve.
The Fed's independence in setting interest rates is considered a bedrock of global economic stability. Subjecting its board to presidential removal would allow a leader to pressure the Fed to adjust rates for short-term political gain, risking market turmoil that would resonate in Canada and worldwide. The Court has already shown unease with this prospect, inventing a novel rationale in a related case to suggest the Fed's "unique structure" might shield it—a move Justice Elena Kagan criticized as having no legal basis.
Historians have filed briefs in the Slaughter case arguing the unitary executive theory distorts history. They note that figures like James Madison acknowledged some government roles were not "purely executive" and could warrant insulation from presidential control, a practice Congress employed as early as the 1790s.
Despite this historical context, the outcome seems predetermined. The Supreme Court's conservative majority is expected to rule in Trump's favor, effectively ending the era of independent agencies as conceived by Congress. This decision would represent a profound consolidation of presidential power, enabling a more autocratic style of governance where key regulatory functions answer directly to the Oval Office's political desires rather than their statutory missions or public need.
