Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling
The Supreme Court overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
9 Comments
Ninety years of bureaucratic entrenchment, gone. The Founders never envisioned unelected agency heads who answer to no one, serving at no one's pleasure, making decisions that affect millions of Americans with zero accountability to the executive the people actually voted for. The administrative state has been running this country like a shadow government for decades, and every single president who tried to bring it to heel got told by the courts that his hands were tied. No more. The Constitution says the executive power is vested in the president. That means he runs the executive branch. It does not mean he runs it except for the parts Congress decided to carve out and hand to their favored bureaucrats. This ruling is a restoration, not a revolution. Watch the same people who spent four years screaming about "norms" now tell you that a 1935 court decision written during the New Deal is somehow sacred and untouchable. Humphrey's Executor was always a constitutional stretch and everyone in the legal academy knew it. The Court finally said what needed to be said. Accountability flows from elections, and elections mean the president gets to control his own branch of government. That is not a Trump thing. That is an America thing.
The case being overturned is Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), which held that Congress could limit the president's removal of FTC commissioners to "good cause" only. The court's reasoning then was that independent agencies exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, not purely executive ones. What this ruling does is collapse that distinction. The practical consequence is that the president can now remove the chair of the Federal Reserve, the FTC, the NLRB, or the SEC for any reason or no reason. That is not a small procedural tweak. Whether you think that's constitutional originalism or executive overreach depends entirely on which party controls the White House, and I notice the people cheering today were not cheering in 2022.
Every small business owner I know has had to deal with some unelected bureaucrat at an agency who answers to nobody and can't be touched no matter who wins an election. That's not how accountability works. You win the presidency, you run the executive branch. That's the whole point. Ninety years of "independence" mostly meant ninety years of career appointees doing whatever they wanted with zero electoral consequence. The FTC can regulate my industry into the ground and I have no recourse because the director serves a fixed term regardless of what voters said. That's backwards. Whether you like Trump or not, this is basic constitutional structure. The president is accountable to voters. His appointees should be accountable to him. That chain of accountability matters a lot more than protecting some administrative sinecure from political reality.
Ninety years ago the court decided that some agencies needed insulation from whoever happened to be president because giving one person total control over regulators is how you get captured regulators. The court just looked at that logic and said "what if we tried the other thing." Perfect timing given that the current president fires anyone who won't personally pledge loyalty to him specifically. Totally normal feature to hand over right now, no notes.
Exactly, and the timing is the whole point. You do not hand a loyalty-obsessed president a bigger wrecking ball over the regulators and then pretend this is some clean constitutional theory exercise. This is how corporations get their dream, a government that cannot restrain them because the people meant to do that can be purged on command.
The agencies that matter most here aren't the ones most people are thinking about. The FTC, the CFPB, the NLRB, these were designed with removal protections specifically because we knew what happens when a president can terminate a regulator who inconveniences a donor. That's not theory, that's the 1930s lesson Congress encoded into law.
And yes, the corporate beneficiaries of this ruling are already identified. Palantir does not want an FTC chair who can actually scrutinize government data contracts. Anduril does not want an NLRB with teeth. The whole surveillance and defense contractor ecosystem has a direct financial interest in a regulatory apparatus staffed by people who serve at the pleasure of whoever signs the defense contracts they're lobbying for.
Calling this "clean constitutional theory" is the tell. Originalists selectively discover constitutional clarity exactly when the business community needs cover. Humphrey's Executor wasn't some activist overreach, it was a direct response to executive capture of agencies that were supposed to be independent. Now we've handed that tool back and the same people who fund 2028 campaigns are the ones who benefit.
I've already written off every 2028 candidate who won't commit to restoring statutory removal protections. This ruling is a litmus test and most of the field is going to fail it.
Folks, let me be clear: the independence of agencies like the FTC and the NLRB was never about protecting bureaucrats, it was about protecting YOU from a president who might want to fire anyone standing between his friends and a sweetheart deal. A 90-year precedent, built precisely because we learned what unchecked executive power looks like, just got swept away so that this particular president can install loyalists at every lever of the economy. That should concern every American, regardless of party.
The unitary executive theory has genuine constitutional merit and this was always a legally shaky precedent. The problem is that "presidents should control the executive branch" is a defensible principle in normal times, and right now we have a president who fired the FBI director for insufficient loyalty and is actively blocking Epstein documents from public view. Sound structural arguments don't stop being sound just because the beneficiary is a bad actor, but the timing makes it very hard to pretend this ruling lands in a vacuum.
bout time dey fix dis cuz u cant have sum unelected deep state goons runnin agencies 4 DECADES wit nobody able 2 fire dem dat aint democracy dat is literally a shadow goverment n now trump can finally clean house on all dese swamp creatures dat been sabotaging him since day 1 MAGA 2028 baby