The Supreme Court appeared poised this week to deliver one of the most consequential rulings on executive power in nearly a century, signaling it may overturn a 1935 decision that created the modern “independent agency” structure and limited the president’s authority to remove top federal officials.
During oral arguments Monday in Trump v. Slaughter, several justices suggested that the long-standing precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States — which allows leaders of agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission to operate beyond direct presidential control — may be unconstitutional.
The case originated from a challenge to President Donald Trump’s decision to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause.
If the Court sides with Trump, it could mark the end of what legal conservatives have long called the “fourth branch of government” — a network of powerful regulatory agencies largely insulated from voter accountability.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of the Court’s most vocal critics of administrative overreach, questioned whether Humphrey’s Executor ever aligned with the Constitution’s design.
“Maybe it’s a recognition that Humphrey’s Executor was poorly reasoned and that there is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government,” Gorsuch said.
The statement underscored a growing consensus among the Court’s conservative justices that the precedent conflicts with Article II of the Constitution, which vests “all executive power” in the president.
For decades, Congress has used the 1935 ruling to shield the heads of agencies from removal, effectively granting them independence from the executive branch.
Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who filed an amicus brief in support of Trump, argued that Humphrey’s Executor “destroys democratic accountability by creating agencies the President cannot control.”
Legal scholars have described the decision as a cornerstone of the administrative state, one that allowed Congress to construct agencies that blend legislative, judicial, and executive powers.
But modern doctrine has largely abandoned the “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” labels used to justify the arrangement. Critics argue those terms simply mask the fact that these agencies execute the law while being insulated from presidential oversight.
“The federal government has been running an unconstitutional side-branch of power,” said one constitutional attorney following the arguments. “If the President can’t remove the officers who execute the laws, then someone else is executing them — and that person isn’t elected by anyone.”
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) said in a statement that the Court now “has the chance to restore presidential authority over the executive branch, freeing us from bureaucratic tyranny.”
The Court’s radical justices warned of potential political abuse if the precedent falls, suggesting that presidents could pressure agency heads for partisan reasons.
But even some of the more cautious conservatives on the bench appeared skeptical that the 1935 framework still makes sense in a modern administrative state where most agency leaders wield substantial executive authority.
What began as a narrow challenge to an FTC personnel decision has evolved into a direct confrontation with the structure of the federal government itself.
A ruling in Trump’s favor would not only affirm his authority to remove agency heads but also redefine the balance of power between the presidency, Congress, and the bureaucracy.
If the Court overturns Humphrey’s Executor, it would mark the most significant reassertion of presidential control since the New Deal era — effectively ending decades of quasi-independent governance and restoring what the Constitution’s framers described as a “unitary executive.”
The decision is expected later this term. If the justices follow the tone of Monday’s arguments, Washington’s system of bureaucratic autonomy — a pillar of governance since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time — may soon come to an end.
