The facade of an independent administrative state, a crucial bulwark against unchecked presidential power, crumbled further this week. In a devastating 6-3 decision handed down on June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court, in Trump v. Slaughter, radically overturned nearly a century of settled constitutional law, empowering the President to fire the heads of multi-member independent agencies without cause. This ruling is not merely a technical legal adjustment; it is a seismic shift that jeopardizes the very foundations of democratic governance and progressive safeguards for ordinary Americans.
The case originated from former President Trump’s March 2025 firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who had been removed, without cause, because her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] administration’s priorities”. Slaughter, a former Democratic appointee, swiftly challenged her dismissal, setting the stage for a showdown that many legal observers feared would further erode the administrative state. The conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court has now delivered precisely that outcome, with Trump himself celebrating the decision on Truth Social as a “BIG WIN” and one of the most important rulings “ever given with respect to Presidential Powers”.
The Current Reality
The Supreme Court’s majority, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, sided squarely with the “unitary executive theory,” asserting that “The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the chief executive, in whom such power is vested”. This legal reasoning paved the way to overturn the 1935 landmark precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had long protected officials in multi-member independent agencies from arbitrary presidential removal by requiring “for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” as grounds for dismissal.
This ruling has immediate and far-reaching consequences for a swath of critical federal agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. These bodies, designed by Congress to operate with a degree of insulation from political whims, are now directly vulnerable to the president’s political agenda.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor poignantly argued in her dissent, the decision “reshapes our government,” is “egregiously wrong,” and “promises to unleash only chaos”. Former Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, whose firing sparked the case, expressed her “profound disappointment,” stating she was terminated “because I have a voice. And he [Trump] is afraid of what I’ll tell the American people”. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, had argued that Humphrey’s Executor “continues to tempt Congress to erect at the heart of our government a headless fourth branch insulated from political accountability and democratic control”.
Significantly, the Court did issue a separate ruling on Monday in Trump v. Cook, declining to allow President Trump to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, thereby preserving some limited independence for the Federal Reserve. However, legal experts like University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman characterized this carve-out as “ridiculous” and difficult to square with the majority’s broad reasoning in Slaughter.
A Progressive Critique
This Supreme Court decision is a brazen assault on the administrative state, representing a critical victory for conservative forces long determined to dismantle regulations and centralize power in the executive branch. Michael Sozan, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, rightly condemned it as a “radical decision [that] shatters the independence of critical federal agencies and weakens their ability to protect the health, safety, and economic well-being of Americans”.
The rationale espoused by the majority – the “unitary executive theory” – is a thinly veiled attempt to justify an imperial presidency, stripping Congress of its constitutional role in establishing checks and balances. By allowing presidents to fire independent agency heads at will, the Court has invited a dangerous politicization of bodies crucial for consumer protection, labor rights, environmental safeguards, and financial stability. As Professor Litman warns, the Court “just handed the president the power to dictate what the heads of those agencies do”.
This ruling builds on a disturbing trend from the conservative-dominated Court, which previously chipped away at agency independence in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), cases that similarly struck down “for cause” removal protections for single-director agencies. The cumulative effect of these decisions is a government vulnerable to what Harvard law professor Daniel Tarullo describes as a “whiplashing effect,” where vital policy directions could swing wildly with each new presidential administration, leading to increased economic uncertainty and regulatory instability. Rachel Rossi, president of Alliance for Justice, starkly summarized the danger: “Our authoritarian president was just handed the keys to be even more authoritarian, and the long-term consequences will no doubt be disastrous”.
The Path Forward
The path forward for progressive forces is challenging but clear. First, it requires a robust and vocal defense of the administrative state, educating the public on the vital role these agencies play in protecting their daily lives from corporate malfeasance and systemic risks. Labor advocates, unions, and consumer advocacy groups have already voiced strong criticism, warning of the “long-term impacts for democracy in the US”. These voices must be amplified.
Second, given the Supreme Court’s current composition, legislative action to restore or create new forms of agency independence will be an uphill battle, but it remains a necessary long-term goal. Congress must explore every constitutional avenue to reassert its authority in structuring government and safeguarding expertise from partisan capture.
Third, grassroots organizing and community action are more critical than ever. Progressive movements must mobilize to hold elected officials accountable, advocate for judicial appointments that respect constitutional balance and administrative expertise, and push for state-level initiatives that can provide some regulatory relief where federal protections are now weakened. The fight for a government that truly serves the people, rather than being a tool of executive power or corporate interests, continues.