Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Presidential Removal Power

On Dec. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could prompt the court to revisit Humphrey’s Executor (1935) and potentially reshape the president’s authority to remove leaders of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Oral arguments offer important clues to the justices’ thinking, particularly through the questions they pose. In this case, the central issue is the balance between presidential control and the independence of certain agencies, as well as the role of historical practice, by which, over time, Congress and past administrations have generally allowed these agencies to operate through mutual deference. During oral arguments, justices challenged both sides on the limits of their positions.

For the U.S. government, questions focused on which agencies, if any, would be protected from at-will removal if the Supreme Court accepted its position. For the party opposing the U.S. on behalf of Slaughter, the Supreme Court asked whether, under their reasoning, Congress could convert all Cabinet positions into multimember commissions with protections against removal. Both sides were also questioned about the potential impact of overturning Humphrey’s Executor, a precedent that has been in place for 90 years.

Ultimately, the decision will hinge on how the Supreme Court balances the president’s authority to manage agencies within the executive branch with Congress’ power to establish independent multimember agencies and delegate some of its powers to bodies that act in both quasi-legislative (through rulemaking) and quasi-judicial (through adjudication) capacities.

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, this case is important to follow because its outcome will have significant implications for work, workers, and the workplace.