Trump Seeks Firing Authority in Landmark Supreme Court Case

US Supreme Court building with American flag

President Trump asks the Supreme Court to grant him authority to fire independent agency leaders in a case that could drastically reshape federal power structures.

Key Insights

The case challenges a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent (Humphrey’s Executor) that protects independent agency leaders from presidential removal.
Two specific cases involving Gwynne Wilcox (NLRB) and Cathy Harris (MSPB) are at the center of the dispute after Trump removed them but courts reinstated them.
If successful, Trump’s action would impact numerous independent agencies including the Federal Reserve, FTC, and FCC.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears potentially receptive to expanding presidential firing powers.
The administration argues that forcing presidents to delegate power to officials opposing their policies violates constitutional executive authority.

Constitutional Showdown Over Executive Authority

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to grant him broader authority to dismiss leaders of independent regulatory agencies, setting up a potential landmark ruling that could fundamentally alter the balance of power in Washington. The request comes as part of the administration’s ongoing efforts to assert greater control over federal bureaucracy and reduce regulations. At stake is a long-standing precedent from 1935 that has protected agency leaders from presidential removal, allowing them to operate with some independence from White House control and political pressure.

The cases specifically involve two agency leaders whom President Trump removed from their positions – Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. Lower courts initially reinstated both officials, but the D.C. Circuit Court has allowed them to remain in their posts while litigation continues. The administration’s argument centers on what they see as a constitutional issue of executive power, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer taking a strong position on behalf of the president.

Challenging a 90-Year Precedent

At the heart of these cases is the potential overturning of Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., a Supreme Court decision from 1935 that established job protections for leaders of independent agencies. This precedent has maintained a delicate balance in the federal government for nearly a century, allowing agencies like the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission to operate with a degree of insulation from direct presidential control. Trump’s administration argues that this independence unconstitutionally restricts the president’s executive power.

“This situation is untenable. The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Legal experts note that the Court’s conservative majority may be receptive to arguments favoring increased presidential authority. The administration has embraced the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that the Constitution gives the president control over all executive branch actions. This view has gained traction with conservative legal scholars and judges in recent years, and this case could provide an opportunity for the Court to affirm this interpretation of presidential power.

Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire independent regulators https://t.co/u44Z8Fty6i

— @AcrossTheCurve (@acrossthecurve) April 9, 2025

Potential Wide-Ranging Impact

If President Trump succeeds in this case, the ramifications would extend far beyond the individual officials involved. A ruling in favor of expanded presidential firing power would affect dozens of federal agencies whose leaders currently enjoy some protection from removal. These agencies regulate critical aspects of American life, from monetary policy to telecommunications, consumer protection, and labor relations. Critics worry that removing this independence would subject technical and nonpartisan decision-making to political pressures.

“it would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives,” said Brianne Gorod.

The Court has already shown some willingness to limit agency independence in recent years. In 2020, the justices ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional because its single director wielded too much unchecked power. However, that decision stopped short of overturning Humphrey’s Executor entirely. The current cases present a more direct challenge to the precedent and could give the Court an opportunity to reconsider the constitutional foundations of independent agencies.

Competing Visions of Government

The legal battle highlights fundamentally different visions of how the government should function. Supporters of the president’s position argue that the Constitution establishes a single executive who should be accountable for all executive branch actions, making agency independence problematic from a constitutional perspective. They maintain that this approach ensures democratic accountability through the elected president. The administration has signaled its intention to replace agency leaders with officials more aligned with the president’s deregulatory agenda.

Defenders of agency independence counter that Congress intentionally created these structures to ensure that certain government functions remain insulated from short-term political pressures. They point particularly to the Federal Reserve’s independence in monetary policy as crucial for economic stability. Justice Elena Kagan made this argument in a previous dissent, highlighting the importance of administrative independence in technical areas where partisan considerations could harm effective governance. The Court’s decision will likely address these competing constitutional and practical concerns.