New Supreme Court Ruling Expands Presidential Power: What HR Needs to Know

HR leaders don’t have the luxury of rewriting their compliance strategy every four years. A recent Supreme Court ruling raises new questions about just how long today’s enforcement priorities will last.

In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court concluded that federal agency leaders who exercise executive power can be removed by the President at will. 

Here’s why that matters – and what to watch for now.

The Removal Dispute Behind the Case

When President Trump began his second term in January 2025, he made a lot of fast changes. He issued a slew of executive orders and removed several Democratic members of independent regulatory agencies. 

Rebecca Slaughter was a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner at the time.

FTC commissioners serve seven-year terms and, under the agency’s governing statute, the President may remove them only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

In March 2025, Trump fired Slaughter and fellow Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya without citing any of those statutory grounds. Instead, he told them their continued service didn’t align with his administration’s priorities and that he was acting under his authority as President.

Slaughter sued, arguing Trump didn’t have the authority to remove her. 

The district court agreed and ordered her reinstatement, citing Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 Supreme Court decision that had long barred the President from removing FTC commissioners at will. 

After the D.C. Circuit declined to pause that order, the government asked the Supreme Court to take up the case before the normal appeals process concluded. The Court agreed.

Court Overturns Nearly a Century of Precedent

In a 6-3 decision, the Court held “the FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers,” clarifying that the President may remove his subordinates at will.  

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the Constitution vests executive power in the President alone, and that officials who exercise executive functions must answer to him directly. Specifically, the Court found that the FTC’s current powers, including rulemaking, investigations, in-house enforcement actions and civil litigation, are executive in nature. As such, the Court reversed the district court’s ruling in Slaughter’s favor and remanded the case.

The ruling overturns Humphrey’s Executor, which had shielded FTC commissioners from removal without cause for nearly 100 years.

Although the decision involved the FTC, its implications may extend beyond that agency. Similar removal questions could arise at other independent federal agencies, including those involved in labor and employment matters.

“The case likely allows the President (including future presidents) to unilaterally remove officials at agencies who had previously been able to serve out terms established by Congress,” said James Plunkett, chair of the Governmental Affairs Practice Group at Ogletree Deakins. “This means that the President will theoretically be able to get his or her preferred officials installed at these agencies much more quickly (though political realities, as well as the Senate’s advice and consent function, remain). Going forward, the President’s policy preferences are more likely to flow down to and be advanced by these agencies, which operated more independently prior to Slaughter.”

HR Takeaways

For HR leaders managing compliance and employment risk, here’s what to track: 

• Court decisions testing how far this ruling’s reasoning extends; it has already been applied to the federal labor board, with similar issues likely for the EEOC and other multi‑member federal agencies 
• Potentially faster leadership turnover at agencies overseeing labor and employment law following changes in administration, depending on future appointments and confirmations, and
• Possible shifts in enforcement priorities and rulemaking agendas as agency composition becomes more directly tied to the President.

“The Slaughter ruling does not make substantive changes to underlying federal labor and employment law,” Plunkett said. “Employers’ obligations under those statutes – as well as their implementing regulations and interpretive caselaw – remain the same.”

Plunkett noted that the ruling’s impact will likely unfold over time:

“Don’t panic, and don’t go rushing to make knee-jerk changes to policies or operations. The immediate impacts of Slaughter on the employer community are likely minimal, as President Trump already has Republican majorities at agencies like the NLRB and EEOC (more significant will be if the Senate can confirm a third Republican to the NLRB, which will give the Board three Republican votes to overturn Biden-era precedent). The Slaughter impacts will most likely be felt when a new administration seeks to populate agencies with their preferred candidates.” 

Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25–332 (U.S. 6/29/26).