A New Era of Presidential Authority: The Trump v. Slaughter Decision
The long-awaited decision from the Supreme Court in the Trump v. Slaughter case has finally been made. This case contemplated whether a president has the power to remove an Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner without cause. The Court ruled 6-3 on Monday, June 29, 2026 that the President can fire federal agency officials at will. The Supreme Court's decision in this case is one of the term's most impactful separation of powers rulings. In its decision, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which set the precedent that Congress could create independent, bipartisan commissions and that presidents cannot remove members of those commissions without cause.
The Slaughter case transpired after President Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. Slaughter argued that Humphrey's Executor is valid law and that for-cause removal protections do not impermissibly interfere with presidential duties. Additionally, Slaughter argued that "all three branches of government have long approved multimember agencies whose members are protected from at-will removal."
The Supreme Court also issued its opinion in Trump v. Cook, holding that the president cannot remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook while a lower court considers the merits of the challenge to her removal based on alleged mortgage fraud. The Court signaled that the Federal Reserve should be treated differently than other federal agencies.
What are the big takeaways from this ruling?
The Court held that the President may remove FTC commissioners without regard to the "for cause" protection Congress provided in the FTC Act. That means President Trump was permitted to remove Rebecca Slaughter from the FTC, without cause, even though her statutory term had not expired.
The effects of this ruling go far beyond the FTC. As I mentioned above, the Court overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the nearly century old precedent that allowed Congress to shield commissioners and board members of independent agencies from at-will removal by the President. For credit unions, this ruling will have a direct impact on the NCUA board. Today’s decision all but ends the challenge from dismissed NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka. The D.C. Circuit must still consider the impact of this decision in Slaughter and determine whether to dismiss the appeal and vacate the decision from the district court.
Additionally, the majority in this ruling embraced a stronger view of presidential control over the executive branch. The President argued that the FTC's statutory "for cause" removal protections restrict the President's constitutional authority. The court accepted this argument and reasoning which looks to the "unitary executive" theory: because executive power is vested in the President by Article II, Congress generally cannot prevent the President from removing executive officers who exercise that power.
The dissenting justices argued that the majority ignored nearly a century of precedent and gave the President unprecedented control over agencies that Congress designed with intention to be politically neutral. They also warned that presidents could replace expert regulators with political loyalists, weakening the political independence of federal regulation.
As for the impact on the NCUA Board, former board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka will likely remain off the board. This means that a president has greater control over the NCUA’s day to day work as they now, effectively, have authority to replace NCUA board members at-will and before their terms expire. This could mean that changes in presidential administrations could lead to faster shifts in regulatory priorities for credit unions and more rapid changes in areas that the NCUA oversees, including the NCUA’s regulations and consumer protection regulations for credit unions under $10 billion in assets, as well as supervisory and examination priorities.
However, yesterday, the Supreme Court took a different approach as it ruled in favor of Lisa Cook in Trump v. Cook. Cook is a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors whom President Donald Trump had attempted to fire. By a vote of 5-4, the court held that Cook can continue to remain in her job while her challenge to the president’s efforts to fire her moves forward. The court relies on a historical exception from the opinion in Myers v. United States, which generally held that the President has broad authority to remove executive officers. Justice Kavanaugh states in the opinion, "Most importantly for constitutional purposes, the Federal Reserve follows in a distinct historical tradition of central bank independence that has long coexisted with Article II. That history of course carries great weight in Article II cases” and he concluded "In my view, in light of that historical practice and precedent, the Federal Reserve may continue as an independent agency after Slaughter." While Slaughter relies heavily on Myers to reaffirm a broad presidential removal power, Cook argues that Myers itself teaches that longstanding historical practice helps define Article II, and that the Federal Reserve falls within a unique historical tradition that justifies an exception.
