NewsNBC Bay Area — PoliticsJune 29, 2026California
Supreme Court Expands Presidential Power to Fire Agency Leaders
The Supreme Court ruled that the President has the authority to fire members of independent federal agencies without cause, overturning a 90-year-old legal precedent. This decision allows for greater presidential control over agencies like the FTC, though it excludes the Federal Reserve.
Read the full story at NBC Bay Area — PoliticsWhy It Matters
This ruling changes the legal protections for commissioners at , allowing the President to remove them for political reasons rather than only for misconduct or neglect of duty.
Key Facts
- The Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow the President to fire members of independent federal agencies without cause.
- The ruling overturns the 90-year-old precedent set by 'Humphrey's Executor'.
- The decision specifically impacts agencies including the FTC, the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
- The court carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve, ruling the President does not have the authority to remove Lisa Cook.
- Previously, federal law stated commissioners could only be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office'.
- Chief Justice John Roberts stated that subordinates exercising presidential power are subject to removal by the President.
- The dissenting justices argued the ruling defies the Constitution and grants the President power beyond that of the English Crown.
Who's Mentioned
personKetanji Brown Jackson“Dissenting Justice.”personDonald Trump“President who initiated the firing of agency commissioners.”otherHumphrey's Executor“90-year-old legal precedent overturned by this ruling.”personSonia Sotomayor“Justice who wrote the dissenting opinion.”personLisa Cook“Federal Reserve member whom the court ruled could not be removed.”personJohn Roberts“Chief Justice who wrote the majority opinion.”personRebecca Slaughter“Democratic FTC commissioner fired by the President.”personD. John Sauer“Solicitor General who argued the case.”personElena Kagan“Dissenting Justice.”organizationFederal Trade Commission“Independent agency affected by the ruling.”