Trump’s Push to Fire Officials Heads to High Court

Government building with columns and American flag flying

The Supreme Court is weighing a landmark challenge from President Trump that could radically reshape the balance of power in Washington by granting him authority to fire leaders of independent federal agencies at will.

Key Takeaways

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a nearly century-old precedent that limits presidential authority to remove independent agency heads.
The cases involve Trump’s removal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board.
If successful, Trump’s challenge could fundamentally alter government operations, potentially affecting agencies like the Federal Reserve Board and Federal Trade Commission.
The administration argues that laws protecting independent agencies unconstitutionally encroach on presidential powers under the unitary executive theory.
A ruling in Trump’s favor would significantly shift power to the White House, allowing for replacement of agency leaders with figures more aligned with the administration’s policy objectives.

Constitutional Challenge to Independent Agencies

President Trump has launched a bold constitutional challenge seeking authority to remove the heads of independent regulatory agencies, a move that could dramatically expand executive power. The cases before the Supreme Court specifically involve Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of whom were removed by Trump but later reinstated by lower courts while litigation continues. The administration’s legal argument hinges on the unitary executive theory, which holds that all executive branch power should ultimately be controlled by the president without congressional limitations.

“The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

Historical Precedent Under Scrutiny

At the heart of this legal battle is the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which established job protections for leaders of independent agencies. This 90-year-old precedent has been the foundation for congressional authority to create independent regulatory bodies that operate somewhat insulated from direct presidential control. The current conservative-majority Supreme Court now appears poised to reconsider or potentially overturn this longstanding ruling, continuing a trend of decisions that have gradually expanded presidential powers and limited constraints on executive authority.

“it would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives” said Brianne Gorod.

Trump asks Supreme Court to let him fire independent regulators https://t.co/u44Z8Fty6i

— @AcrossTheCurve (@acrossthecurve) April 9, 2025

Far-reaching Implications for Government Operations

The outcome of these cases could fundamentally transform the federal government’s structure and operation. If successful, Trump’s challenge would grant him sweeping authority to replace heads of independent agencies with officials more aligned with his administration’s deregulatory agenda. This would potentially affect numerous agencies that impact everyday American life, including the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Communications Commission, and Federal Trade Commission. The administration has made clear its intention to install business-friendly leadership across these agencies to advance its economic policies.

Recent Precedents Favor Expanded Executive Power

The Supreme Court has shown increasing sympathy toward expanded executive authority in recent years. In 2020, the Court ruled in Seila Law that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional because its single director wielded too much unchecked power. While that decision left Humphrey’s Executor technically intact, several justices signaled interest in further limiting independent agencies. Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in that case warned about potential consequences for administrative independence, specifically mentioning critical agencies like the Federal Reserve.

“interpretation of the scope of his constitutional power — or, more aptly, his aspiration — is flat wrong,” said the judge in Wilcox’s case.

A Consequential Decision Looming

Legal experts across the political spectrum recognize the profound significance of this case for American governance. The Trump administration’s position represents a dramatic reinterpretation of presidential authority that would consolidate significant power in the executive branch. Proponents argue this aligns with the Constitution’s vision of a strong, accountable executive, while critics warn it undermines important checks and balances. With oral arguments underway, the Court appears to be seriously considering whether to grant presidents unprecedented control over agencies traditionally designed to operate with some degree of independence from political pressure.