Washington, D.C., June 29, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The U.S. Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Trump v. Slaughter today, overturning Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., a 1935 precedent that formerly prevented the President from firing Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners at will. The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an amicus curiae brief calling for this result. President Trump fired Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter for reasons other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” the only permissible reasons the FTC statute provides. The Justices agreed with NCLA that this statutory removal restriction violates core constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court’s majority recognized that, contrary to the premise of Humphrey’s, FTC commissioners exercise executive power, while Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in the President’s hands so he can “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” To uphold his duty, the President must have unlimited ability to remove FTC commissioners and any other principal officers who wield executive power in a manner contrary to his instructions. By trying to limit the President’s removal authority over FTC commissioners, Congress violated the constitutional separation of powers, a transgression that Humphrey’s mistakenly upheld.
“Nearly 250 years ago, the Framers decided to vest ‘[t]he executive Power’ in one person—‘a President of the United States of America,’” Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court. “Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. … [O]nly then can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
Unfortunately, a slim 5-4 Supreme Court majority decided in Trump v. Cook today that President Trump improperly tried to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook from office. The majority held that a statute passed by Congress (18 U.S.C. § 242) entitled Cook to greater due process than she received before the President could remove her—requiring him to have a substantial, reasonable, and just cause for removal.
But as NCLA’s amicus curiae brief in the case argued, and as dissenting Justice Thomas understood, the President must have absolute authority to remove Federal Reserve Board Governors like Cook. Some commentators insist the Federal Reserve must be wholly independent, but the Constitution does not allow Congress to establish unaccountable agencies and offices that issue and enforce regulations against private parties—as the Fed does. Justice Thomas refuted the majority opinion’s claim that America has a “long tradition” of independent central banking, writing, “Before the [1913] Federal Reserve Act, the American tradition of central banking consisted mainly of the First and Second Banks of the United States … These banks possessed no sovereign power.”
NCLA released the following statements:
“The Supreme Court’s decision today in Slaughter represents a huge victory for our constitutional republic. By expressly overturning Humphrey’s Executor and returning to a faithful interpretation of separation of powers, the Court’s decision in Slaughter ensures that federal agencies remain answerable to the Executive—and in turn to the American people who elected the President.”
—Margot Cleveland, Of Counsel, NCLA
“The Constitution makes federal officials who wield executive power accountable to the President. Today’s decision in Trump v. Cook shields Fed Governors from that accountability. It’s an unfortunate step in the wrong direction from a Court that has mostly moved in the right direction when it comes to constraining agency leaders’ authority and enforcing the Constitution’s Separation of Powers.”
—Jacob Huebert, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
“Today’s Slaughter and Cook decisions represent a half measure. Restoring the President’s ability to remove FTC commissioners at will enhances self-government with respect to most independent agencies. The decision closely tracked the arguments NCLA has made for several years in support of at-will removals. However, by requiring more due process before the President can remove governors from the Federal Reserve Board, who also exercise the President’s executive power, the Supreme Court struck a severe blow against self-government.”
— Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA
For more information visit the amicus pages here and here.
ABOUT NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA’s public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans’ fundamental rights.
Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 joe.martyak@ncla.legal
