In a fiery dissent that pulled no punches, Justice Elena Kagan accused the Supreme Court’s conservative majority of bulldozing over congressional authority to hand Donald Trump sweeping new powers — this time, over America’s independent regulatory agencies.
The court’s latest move? A 6-3 decision that allows Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter, even as the justices prepare to hear arguments on whether to overturn a nearly century-old precedent that protects these agencies from presidential interference.
The conservative bloc offered no explanation for its ruling, but its direction was clear: it’s coming for Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that has long stood as a bulwark keeping presidents from treating independent agencies like political playthings.
“Congress, as everyone agrees, prohibited each of those presidential removals,” Kagan wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President.”
Let’s be clear — this isn’t just about the FTC. Monday’s decision is part of a broader pattern. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court has repeatedly signed off on his efforts to fire government officials, reshape immigration policy, and slash emergency relief funding — in many cases where Congress had drawn clear lines limiting presidential power.
The decision signals the court’s readiness to either gut or fully overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 case that found agency commissioners can only be removed for cause — such as misconduct or neglect of duty. That ruling, back then, rejected FDR’s attempt to fire an FTC commissioner who refused to rubber-stamp New Deal policies.
That decision has irritated conservatives for decades. Why? Because it helped build the modern administrative state — powerful federal agencies that don’t answer directly to the White House. Think labor law, consumer protection, public broadcasting. It’s the kind of bureaucratic structure that gets labeled as “deep state” in some circles. And now, with Trump back in office and a solidly conservative court, the knives are out.
Slaughter’s attorneys warned that letting the president fire board members at will makes a mockery of the idea that expertise and impartiality should guide regulatory decisions. “If the President is to be given new powers Congress has expressly and repeatedly refused to give him, that decision should come from the people’s elected representatives,” they said.
Justice Kagan echoed that alarm, writing bluntly: “The majority may be raring to take that action, as its grant of certiorari before judgment suggests. But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”
For now, Slaughter is out — and she’s not alone. The Court also cleared the path for Trump to remove two other board members: Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. But the justices declined to hear their cases yet, focusing squarely on the Slaughter case.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department is arguing the president should have full authority to fire agency heads for any reason, claiming in court filings that, “The President and the government suffer irreparable harm when courts transfer even some of that executive power to officers beyond the President’s control.”
Connecticut Democrat Rosa DeLauro, in an amicus brief, warned of the broader implications. “The stakes for Congress and the public… are high,” she wrote. “The fiscal year ends on September 30, less than three weeks from today.”
And it’s not just regulatory boards at risk. Legal observers say the court may be setting up a future showdown over the Federal Reserve, particularly after the controversial firing of Governor Lisa Cook — a case that could test whether even central banking can remain shielded from presidential influence.
Trump keeps pushing the limits — and the Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps clearing the way. But Justice Kagan isn’t staying silent.
In her dissent, she makes one thing crystal clear: the Court isn’t just tipping the scales — it’s breaking the rules.
