For ninety years, a single 1935 precedent stood between the president and total control over the officials who regulate the economy: the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve, the National Labor Relations Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Presidents could not simply fire the people who ran these agencies because they disagreed with a ruling or wanted a loyalist in the seat. Congress built them to be insulated — for cause removal only, not at-will.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ended that. And in the very same batch of opinions, it decided the rule didn’t apply to the one agency that matters most to financial markets.

What Humphrey’s Executor Actually Protected

In 1935, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States upheld a law preventing the president from removing FTC commissioners except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” President Franklin Roosevelt had fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey simply because Humphrey wouldn’t go along with New Deal policy. The Court unanimously said no — Congress had created the FTC to exercise “quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial” functions, not purely executive ones, and Congress was entitled to insulate it from raw political control.

That single case became the constitutional foundation for the modern independent regulatory agency. The FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Communications Commission — all of it rests on the premise that Congress can build agencies designed to outlast, and operate independently of, whoever happens to occupy the Oval Office.

Trump v. Slaughter: The Precedent Falls

In March 2025, Trump fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause — precisely the scenario Humphrey’s Executor was written to prevent. Slaughter sued. The case reached the Supreme Court as Trump v. Slaughter, and on June 29, 2026, six justices — Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — ruled that Trump’s firing was lawful, and explicitly overruled Humphrey’s Executor in the process.

Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion didn’t pretend the FTC of 2026 looks like the FTC of 1935. It argued the opposite: that Humphrey’s Executor was “tethered to a highly circumscribed and almost fictional view of the FTC’s role,” and that whatever remained of the old decision was just “the observation that an agency that exercises no part of the executive power need not fall within the rule of Presidential removal.” Since the modern FTC “unquestionably exercises executive power,” Roberts concluded, it “must therefore be controlled by the President.”

This is the same rhetorical move the current majority has used throughout its unitary executive project: redefine the old case until there’s nothing left of it, then declare it overruled rather than admit you’re changing the law. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent didn’t mince words about where this leads. Congress created multi-member agencies, she wrote, “to address complex problems while enjoying some independence from Presidential removal and thus absolute partisan control.” By letting the president remove commissioners for any reason at all, she argued, the majority “gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted.”

Trump v. Cook: The Same Court Changes Its Mind for the Fed

Here is where it gets revealing. Handed down the same day, Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312 asked essentially the identical question about Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, whom Trump tried to fire over unproven mortgage-fraud allegations Cook denies outright, calling the move “an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure.”

If Slaughter had actually announced a clean, principled rule — the president can remove any officer who “exercises executive power” — Cook’s case should have been just as easy. The Fed exercises executive power too; nobody disputes that. Instead, the Court split 5–4, with Roberts writing for the majority, joined by Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices, holding that the lower court’s injunction blocking Cook’s removal stays in place while the litigation plays out, and that the president must give Cook notice and a hearing before any removal can even take effect. The ruling was careful to say it wasn’t deciding whether Trump ultimately had cause to fire Cook — only that the normal legal process had to happen first.

Roberts’s own majority opinion in Slaughter had gestured at why the Fed might be different — something about its unique structure and its role in the economy — but the reasoning was thin, and it was obviously result-driven. A Court that had just spent pages arguing the president cannot be constitutionally restrained from removing agency heads immediately found a reason to restrain him from removing this one. The market-moving, currency-defining, everyone’s-401k-depends-on-it one.

The Tell

Two rulings, one day, one 6-3 majority that becomes a 5-4 majority the moment the agency in question is the Federal Reserve. That is not principle. That is a Court that understood exactly how much financial chaos would follow from telling markets the president could fire the Fed chair on a whim — and built itself an exception on the spot.

This matters because the entire justification for overturning Humphrey’s Executor was that a clear constitutional rule required it: agencies that exercise executive power must answer to the president, full stop, no exceptions Congress can legislate around. The Fed carve-out proves that isn’t actually the operating principle. The operating principle is that this majority will hand Trump sweeping new power over the regulatory state, right up until the exact point where doing so would be too disruptive to test in real time. The doctrine bends to convenience, the same way it has throughout this Court’s “originalist” project — rigorous when it strips a check on power, suddenly flexible when consistency would be too costly.

What’s Actually at Stake

Slaughter doesn’t just affect the FTC. The same reasoning applies to the NLRB, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and every other multi-member independent agency built on the Humphrey’s Executor framework. Every commissioner at every one of those agencies now serves, functionally, at the president’s pleasure. A future president — this one or the next — can fire anyone whose vote he doesn’t like and replace them with someone who will vote his way, without waiting for a term to expire or proving misconduct.

That is the practical meaning of the unitary executive theory this Court has been building toward for a decade: not a president who faithfully executes laws Congress passes, but a president who controls every officer charged with enforcing them, insulated from Congress’s own design choices about how those agencies should work. Combined with the presidential immunity the Court invented in 2024, the picture is a presidency that can direct regulators to act — or refuse to act — for purely political reasons, largely free from personal legal consequence.

The Fed exception in Trump v. Cook isn’t a sign of restraint. It’s a sign that the justices know exactly how far their own logic reaches, and chose, this one time, not to go there. That is not how constitutional law is supposed to work. It is how a political institution manages its own credibility.

None of this is happening because the text of Article II changed. It’s happening because six justices — appointed for life, insulated from electoral accountability, deciding cases with sweeping and inconsistent consequences for how the entire government functions — decided it should. The same institution that gave the presidency this power reserved for itself, unreviewable, the discretion to decide where the power stops.

That is precisely the argument for structural reform: term limits, an enforceable ethics code, and rules that prevent nine unelected people from making decisions of this magnitude with no check on their own consistency. A Court that can dismantle a 90-year-old restraint on presidential power in the morning and invent a carve-out for the one institution most likely to cause a market panic in the afternoon is not applying law. It is exercising raw, unaccountable discretion — and calling it constitutional interpretation.

Sources