Roberts Court Strips Regulators of Independence, Except the Fed

NEWS & RESEARCH

In a landmark expansion of executive power, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on June 29, 2026, that the president can fire the leaders of independent regulatory agencies for any or no reason, overturning a 90-year legal precedent designed to shield regulators from political interference. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, arose from the case of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—an agency Congress originally established with clear protections allowing removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." The ruling is expected to affect more than two dozen federal oversight bodies, effectively validating President Trump’s recent ousters of Democratic members from the EEOC, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. However, in a separate 5–4 decision, the Court carved out a narrow exception for the Federal Reserve, blocking the immediate removal of Fed Governor Lisa D. Cook on the ground that she was denied due process to contest the administration's unproven allegations.

SOURCES: New York Times | Slaughter decision by Supreme Court | NPR

ANALYSIS & OPINION

Legal commentators noted that the Slaughter decision closely aligns with the “unitary executive” theory, which asserts that the president should exercise unfettered control over the entire executive branch—even over regulatory agencies created and funded by Congress. In a biting dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the ruling “gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the Founders revolted," ultimately transforming the duty to faithfully execute laws "into a license to act in defiance of those very laws.” Critics argue this power is ripe for abuse: Matt Woods of Free Press opined that the Trump administration "repeatedly put their hands out... trading government approvals away for political promises, partisan ideological wins, and personal enrichment." The Slaughter decision marks another dramatic expansion of executive authority by the Roberts Court, arriving just two years after its landmark ruling that presidents are broadly immune from prosecution for official acts.

SOURCES: SCOTUSblog | NPR | Free Press | The Guardian | New York Times | Balls and Strikes

HOW TO FIX IT

Federal action:

• Pass the TERM Act, which would impose an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices and regularize the appointments process so that a new justice would be nominated every two years.

• Reintroduce and pass the Judiciary Act of 2023, a law to increase the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to thirteen.

• Heighten congressional scrutiny of presidential appointments to regulatory commissions to prevent “regulatory capture” by the industries being policed. This would require enforcing stringent conflict-of-interest checks on nominees, blocking the confirmation of presidential cronies, strictly enforcing lobbying disclosure rules, and leveraging congressional oversight to block conflicted nominees during the confirmation process

Legislation: H.R.3544 - Supreme Court Tenure Establishment and Retirement Modernization Act of 2025 | S.1616 - Judiciary Act of 2023