An ‘Originalist’ Court Overturns an Originalist Decision

TL;DR

Prime Big Deal Days · Oct 6–7Offer from Amazon

Get the little things that make your day delivered free — and shop member deals

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Access to Prime Big Deal Days deals on October 6–7
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

The Supreme Court has overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 90-year-old precedent, in a ruling that expands presidential authority over independent agencies. The decision marks a significant shift in separation of powers doctrine.

In a landmark decision on June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 90-year-old precedent that limited the president’s power to remove certain independent agency officials. This ruling significantly broadens presidential authority over such agencies, marking a major shift in the Court’s approach to separation of powers and administrative law.

The Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter explicitly overturns Humphrey’s, which had upheld restrictions on presidential removal of members of independent commissions like the Federal Trade Commission. Chief Justice Roberts argued that to faithfully execute the law, the president must have the authority to remove officers of independent agencies, a departure from the Court’s previous cautious stance rooted in Humphrey’s. This ruling aligns with the Court’s recent trend of expanding executive power, and it has significant implications for the independence of federal agencies.

Historically, Humphrey’s was authored by Justice George Sutherland in 1935, emphasizing that independent commissions exercise legislative functions and should not be subject to no-cause removal restrictions. The Court distinguished these agencies from executive officers like cabinet secretaries, whose removal is entirely at the president’s discretion. Roberts’s opinion in this case collapses that distinction, asserting that all administrative functions are inherently under presidential control, unless explicitly exempted.

The decision has drawn criticism from legal scholars who argue it undermines the constitutional separation of powers by consolidating authority in the executive branch, potentially affecting the independence of agencies responsible for regulation and oversight.

Implications for Executive Power and Agency Independence

This ruling fundamentally shifts the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, favoring increased presidential control over independent agencies. It could reshape how federal agencies operate and are held accountable, impacting regulatory enforcement, economic policy, and administrative oversight. The decision signals a move toward a more centralized executive authority, raising questions about the future independence of key regulatory bodies and the scope of congressional authority.

Historical and Legal Background of Separation of Powers

Humphrey’s Executor was established in 1935, during the New Deal era, affirming that certain independent agencies could not be removed at will by the president because they exercise legislative functions. This decision was grounded in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, emphasizing historical understanding of separation of powers. Prior to Humphrey’s, Justice Taft’s 1926 opinion in Myers v. United States upheld broad presidential removal authority, based on the historical context of early executive practice. The recent decision by Roberts marks a departure from this historical continuity, reflecting a broader judicial trend toward expanding presidential control.

In recent years, the Court has been reevaluating the scope of executive authority, with Roberts’s opinion in Slaughter explicitly rejecting Humphrey’s logic. This shift aligns with a conservative legal approach emphasizing a strong presidency, but it also raises concerns about the erosion of agency independence and the potential politicization of administrative functions.

“To faithfully execute the law, the president must have the power to remove officers of independent commissions. Without this authority, the president cannot effectively carry out executive functions.”

— Chief Justice John Roberts

Unresolved Questions About Agency Independence

It remains unclear how broadly this ruling will be applied to other independent agencies beyond the Federal Trade Commission. The decision explicitly exempts the Federal Reserve Board, citing its unique monetary policy role, but it is uncertain whether other agencies will be similarly affected or if further legal challenges will clarify the scope of presidential removal authority.

Legal experts are also debating whether this ruling could lead to a reevaluation of existing agency structures or prompt legislative responses to limit or define presidential control more precisely. The long-term impact on administrative law and agency independence is still developing and will likely unfold over the coming months and years.

Legal and Legislative Responses Expected Soon

Following this decision, legal challenges to agency independence are expected to increase, potentially reaching the Supreme Court again. Congress may also consider legislation to clarify the scope of presidential removal powers and the independence of federal agencies. Administrative agencies are preparing for potential shifts in oversight and operational procedures as the implications of this ruling become clearer.

Additionally, political debates surrounding executive authority and regulatory independence are likely to intensify, influencing upcoming elections and policy discussions at both federal and state levels.

Key Questions

What exactly did the Supreme Court overturn?

The Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that limited the president’s power to remove officials of independent agencies without cause.

Why is this decision significant?

It shifts the constitutional balance toward greater presidential control over independent agencies, potentially affecting their independence and the administration of regulatory functions.

Does this ruling affect all independent agencies?

It explicitly exempts the Federal Reserve Board but leaves open the question of how it will impact other agencies. Further legal and legislative actions are expected to clarify this scope.

What are the constitutional arguments involved?

The case centers on the interpretation of the separation of powers, particularly whether the president must have the authority to remove agency officials to effectively execute the law, a question with no clear textual answer in the Constitution.

What happens next legally?

Legal challenges and legislative debates are anticipated as the implications of this ruling unfold, potentially leading to further Supreme Court review or statutory reforms.

Source: The Atlantic