Supreme Court Signals End of Independent Agency Era as Trump Pushes Constitutional Limits

Historic Challenge to Administrative State Reaches Climax as Court Prepares to Hear Case That Could Reshape Federal Government

The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to overturn nearly a century of constitutional precedent governing the federal administrative state, as President Donald Trump's aggressive campaign to fire independent agency heads has found receptive ground with the Court's conservative majority. In a series of emergency rulings throughout 2025, the Court has repeatedly sided with the Trump administration's expansive interpretation of presidential power, setting the stage for what legal scholars describe as the most significant restructuring of federal governance since the New Deal.

The Constitutional Earthquake Unfolds

On Monday, September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court delivered its clearest signal yet that it intends to fundamentally reshape the administrative state. In a 6-3 decision, the Court allowed President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while agreeing to hear the case during its December session. The Court's brief, unsigned order offered no explanation, but Justice Elena Kagan's sharp dissent warned that the majority was "effectively repealing Humphrey's Executor 'by fiat'" without proper deliberation.

This latest ruling follows a pattern of Supreme Court emergency orders throughout 2025 that have systematically dismantled the legal protections surrounding independent agencies. In May, the Court stayed lower court rulings that would have reinstated Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board after Trump fired them without cause. The Court also allowed Trump to remove Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel, who had been investigating the administration's mass firing of federal employees.

Humphrey's Executor: The 90-Year Foundation

At the center of this constitutional battle lies Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision that has protected independent agencies for nine decades. The case arose when President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired Federal Trade Commission member William E. Humphrey over policy disagreements regarding economic regulation and the New Deal, despite federal law restricting removal to cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice George Sutherland established that Congress could create independent agencies whose commissioners would be insulated from presidential removal except for cause. The decision distinguished between purely executive officers, whom the president could fire at will, and officials serving in "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" roles who required protection to maintain their independence.

"The Court held that it was not unconstitutional for Section 1 of the FTC Act to limit the power of the President to remove FTC commissioners only to situations involving 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,'" the 1935 ruling stated, emphasizing that the FTC was intended to be "an independent, nonpartisan body of experts" free from direct presidential control.

The Humphrey's Executor framework has underpinned the modern administrative state, protecting agencies ranging from the Federal Communications Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission from political interference.

The Unitary Executive Theory Ascendant

Trump's challenge to independent agencies is grounded in the "unitary executive theory," a constitutional interpretation that assigns complete control over the executive branch to the president. Proponents argue that Article II of the Constitution, which states that "the executive Power shall be vested in a President," creates a hierarchical system requiring all executive branch personnel to serve at the president's discretion.

The theory gained prominence during the Reagan administration and has been championed by the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and conservative legal scholars. Under this interpretation, any limit on the president's removal power—except in the most exceptional circumstances—violates the Constitution's separation of powers.

"Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President," the Supreme Court wrote in its May 2025 emergency order in the Wilcox and Harris cases, "he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents."

Former Trump administration attorney James Burnham, who served as general counsel for Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, articulated the administration's position: "There's a, I think, quite a strong Article II argument that the president has the authority to remove anybody who wields basically any modicum of authority. Anyone who is wielding his power, who's wielding derivative executive power that comes from the president, needs to be removable at will."

Project 2025 and the Blueprint for Change

The drive to overturn Humphrey's Executor has been a central element of Project 2025, the comprehensive policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations. The 900-page "Mandate for Leadership" explicitly calls for challenging the 1935 precedent as part of a broader effort to "dismantle the administrative state."

Project 2025's supporters argue that independent agencies have become "unaccountable" bodies staffed by "unelected bureaucrats" who ignore "the will of the people." The document advocates for "forming a unitary federal agency governance consensus mandated and controlled by the President" and suggests that overturning Humphrey's Executor would restore constitutional governance.

Critics have characterized Project 2025 as an authoritarian blueprint that would concentrate unprecedented power in the presidency. Legal scholars warn that eliminating agency independence could undermine the rule of law, expert decision-making, and the traditional system of checks and balances.

The Supreme Court's Shifting Jurisprudence

The Roberts Court has gradually eroded the foundations of independent agency authority through a series of decisions that have expanded presidential removal power. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Court ruled 5-4 that the CFPB's single-director structure with for-cause removal protection violated the Constitution, though it left multi-member agency protections intact.

The Court has distinguished between different types of agencies, with the May 2025 order specifically noting that the Federal Reserve Board represents "a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," suggesting it may retain special protection.

However, Justice Kagan's dissents throughout 2025 have warned that the Court's conservative majority is systematically dismantling agency independence. In her September dissent regarding the FTC case, she argued that "nowhere is short-circuiting our deliberative process less appropriate than when the ruling requested would disrespect—by either overturning or narrowing—one of this Court's longstanding precedents."

Constitutional Scholars Divided

Legal experts remain sharply divided on the constitutional foundations of the unitary executive theory and the validity of Humphrey's Executor. Supporters of the theory point to the text of Article II and argue that the Founding Fathers intended the president to have complete control over executive functions.

However, constitutional historians like Christine Chabot, Julian Davis Mortenson, and Jed Handelsman Shugerman have challenged these interpretations through extensive research into the founding era. Their work suggests that the historical record points "much more strongly in the opposite direction" and that the presidential removal power was not central to the founders' interpretation of Article II.

Peter Shane of Ohio State University has criticized the unitary executive theory as having "all but undercut" Humphrey's Executor through what he calls "speciousness" in constitutional interpretation. He argues that the theory conflicts with basic constitutional principles, noting that the Appointments Clause allows Congress to create federal offices and define their functions.

Implications for Federal Governance

If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey's Executor in December, the consequences could be far-reaching and potentially irreversible. Unlike legislation, Supreme Court rulings on constitutional interpretation can only be overturned by constitutional amendment, which is virtually impossible in today's political climate.

The immediate impact would affect dozens of independent agencies that regulate everything from financial markets and telecommunications to labor relations and consumer safety. Agency commissioners, currently serving fixed terms with bipartisan representation requirements, would serve at the president's pleasure, potentially ending the tradition of expert-led, politically insulated regulatory bodies.

Trump's actions have already provided a preview of this transformed landscape. He has fired leaders of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Justice has announced it will no longer defend for-cause removal protections, effectively abandoning its traditional role in protecting agency independence.

The Stakes for Democracy

Legal scholars and former government officials warn that eliminating independent agencies could fundamentally alter American governance. Marc Elias has noted that "so much of the administrative state as we know it is guided by so-called independent agencies, to whom Congress has given a measure of insulation so that they can apply specialized or technical expertise free from raw political control."

The transformation could create what critics describe as an "imperial presidency" where a single individual controls the vast regulatory apparatus that governs American economic and social life. Instead of bipartisan bodies making decisions based on expertise and law, all regulatory actions would flow from the president's political preferences.

Supporters argue this would restore democratic accountability by ensuring that the "will of the people expressed to the democratically elected president" determines regulatory policy. They contend that the current system allows unelected bureaucrats to implement their own values rather than those chosen by voters.

Historical Context and Future Implications

The current constitutional battle echoes the tensions of the 1930s, when Humphrey's Executor was decided amid President Roosevelt's conflicts with the Supreme Court over New Deal programs. Legal scholars note that the 1935 decision was issued on the same day the Court struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act, part of the Court's broader resistance to expanded presidential power.

The irony is that today's conservative Supreme Court appears ready to grant Trump powers that even Roosevelt could not obtain. If successful, the transformation would represent the most significant expansion of presidential authority since World War II and could set precedents lasting for generations.

As the December oral arguments approach, the stakes could not be higher. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the United States maintains its traditional system of expert-led regulatory agencies or transitions to a more centralized model of presidential control over the administrative state.

The outcome will shape not only how the federal government operates but also how it responds to future crises requiring specialized expertise, from financial regulation to environmental protection to public health emergencies. For the first time in 90 years, the fundamental structure of American administrative governance hangs in the balance.

---

Sources and Citations

1. Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. Wilcox, No. 24A966 (May 22, 2025). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf
2. Howe, Amy. "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire FTC commissioner." SCOTUSblog, September 22, 2025. https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/09/supreme-court-allows-trump-to-fire-ftc-commissioner/
3. Supreme Court of the United States. Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/602/
4. Warren, Andrew. "The Supreme Court's FTC ruling is a death sentence for independent agencies." MSNBC, September 10, 2025. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-trump-ftc-commissioner-firing-independent-agencies-rcna230129
5. Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court allows Trump to fire -- for now -- remaining Democrat on FTC." NPR, September 22, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/22/nx-s1-5550307/supreme-court-ftc-firing
6. "Unitary executive theory." Wikipedia, accessed September 24, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory
7. Shane, Peter. "The Unbearable Lightness of the Unitary Executive Theory." The Regulatory Review, March 4, 2025. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/03/03/shane-the-unbearable-lightness-of-the-unitary-executive-theory/
8. Waldman, Michael. "The Extreme Legal Theory Behind Trump's First Month in Office." Brennan Center for Justice, February 17, 2025. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/extreme-legal-theory-behind-trumps-first-month-office
9. "Project 2025." Wikipedia, accessed September 24, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
10. Rubin, Jennifer. "What Is Humphrey's Executor and Why Should You Care About It?" Center for American Progress, April 24, 2025. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-is-humphreys-executor-and-why-should-you-care-about-it/
11. Inskeep, Steve. "Trump knocks watchdog agencies, other checks on executive power." NPR, September 17, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/17/nx-s1-5475191/trump-executive-power-supreme-court-whistleblower
12. Goodwin, Michele. "The Administrative State in a Project 2025 World." The Regulatory Review, December 2, 2024. https://www.theregreview.org/2024/12/02/goodwin-the-administrative-state-in-a-project-2025-world/
13. Vance, Joyce. "Humphrey's Executor." Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance, March 9, 2025. https://joycevance.substack.com/p/humphreys-executor
14. "Supreme Court to Revisit Deep State Case Humphrey's Executor." The Daily Signal, September 22, 2025. https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/09/22/supreme-court-takes-case-reconsidering-major-precedent-protecting-deep-state/
15. Sunstein, Cass R. and Adrian Vermeule. "The Unitary Executive: Past, Present, Future." The Supreme Court Review, 2020. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714860
16. Supreme Court SHOCKS Everyone with Trump Decision!!! - YouTube