“BIG WIN at the Supreme Court,” Trump wrote.
“It is such an Honor to be the sitting President who won this Historic and Unprecedented Ruling, one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers,” he added.
Trump later emphasized the significance of the decision by arguing that the court had swept aside nearly a century of legal precedent.
In another Truth Social post, Trump declared that his case had overturned “90 years of precedent,” describing the outcome as a dramatic restoration of executive authority that previous presidents had been denied.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter, a decision that effectively overturns the court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor. For decades, that earlier case limited a president’s ability to remove leaders of certain independent federal agencies unless specific legal cause could be shown.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that those restrictions conflict with the Constitution’s separation of powers by preventing the president from exercising proper control over the executive branch.
“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority in the ruling.
The legal dispute stemmed from Trump’s decision to remove former Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter despite a federal statute that attempted to shield FTC commissioners from dismissal without cause.
The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that presidents generally possess the constitutional authority to remove officials leading independent agencies at will. That reasoning extends well beyond the FTC and is expected to affect agencies including the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The decision marks another major legal victory for Trump’s effort to bring greater accountability to the executive branch during his second term. Supporters argue that presidents cannot effectively govern if they are prevented from supervising officials who exercise executive authority while remaining insulated from presidential oversight.
The justices did, however, preserve a significant exception involving the Federal Reserve.
In a separate 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court allowed Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in office while she continues challenging Trump’s effort to remove her over allegations of mortgage fraud, allegations Cook has denied.
Chief Justice Roberts explained that immediately removing Cook would effectively eliminate the Federal Reserve’s statutory protections before the courts had fully resolved the dispute. At the same time, he made clear that Trump could seek her removal again if the proper legal procedures are followed.
Trump quickly signaled that he intends to do exactly that.
“We will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!” Trump wrote June 29 on Truth Social.
The ruling drew strong opposition from the court’s liberal wing.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent, argued that the majority had granted presidents unprecedented authority over independent agencies and warned that the decision could weaken the independence Congress intended those agencies to maintain.
Backers of the ruling strongly disagree with that assessment, arguing the Constitution clearly places executive authority in the hands of the president. They contend that decades of judicial precedent improperly weakened the executive branch by allowing Congress to insulate executive officials from presidential supervision.
Legal analysts believe the ruling could reshape the structure of the federal government for years to come. Independent agencies responsible for labor relations, consumer protection, workplace discrimination, federal employment, aviation safety, and financial regulation may now see greater turnover as future presidents gain expanded authority to appoint officials who share their policy objectives.
Commentator Ben Dyke described the decision as a turning point for constitutional law.
“This is historic,” Dyke said, calling the ruling a “bombshell.”
He argued that the Supreme Court correctly restored constitutional authority to the president, who serves as head of the Executive Branch and should not be prevented by Congress from exercising powers assigned under Article II.
Beyond the Federal Trade Commission, the decision is expected to impact roughly two dozen independent federal agencies, giving future presidents broader authority to replace commissioners and board members with appointees who align with their administrations. Legal experts say the ruling could fundamentally redefine the balance of power between the White House and independent agencies for generations to come.
