High court issues split decisions on Trump’s control of executive board members

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump both a win and a loss Monday in allowing his firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, but ruling that he cannot remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's board of governors.

The 6-3 decision in Trump’s favor in the Federal Trade Commission case essentially expands the president’s authority over agency governing panels, further calling into question which bodies are independent of the executive branch.

The court, split along its familiar ideological divide, held that requiring for-cause removal for political appointees on the FTC’s five-member panel is “contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.”

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion.

“The FTC has the power to promulgate substantive rules carrying the force of law, investigate businesses and enforce statutes through in-house adjudications, and file civil suits on behalf of the United States in federal court,” Roberts wrote. “The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive.”

The decision nullifies the court’s 1935 unanimous decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which overruled President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s removal of William Humphrey from the commission. The framework of the nearly century-old ruling “has not withstood the test of time,” Roberts wrote.

“If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, the Court overrules it. Humphrey’s has for decades been a result in search of a rationale …” he continued.

Trump hailed the decision in a post on his Truth Social platform Monday.

“To show the importance of the Slaughter Case, 90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!” Trump wrote. 

Dissent presses for independence

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Sotomayor wrote that the structure of executive boards that manage nuclear energy, consumer products and workplace safety, among others, “allows the agencies to address complex problems while enjoying some independence from Presidential removal and thus absolute partisan control.”  

Trump fired Slaughter on March 28 in an email that said her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.” Slaughter sued and won in federal district court and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Slaughter has served as an FTC commissioner since 2018, during Trump’s first term. President Joe Biden reappointed her and the Senate unanimously confirmed her for a second term in 2023.

Alvero Bedoya, who served as FTC commissioner under Biden, said the decision reduces the commission to a “little lap dog” for Trump’s allies. 

Bedoya delivered the remarks during a press call organized by the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative.  

“The idea that putting the FTC under the direct control of Donald Trump is going to make people's lives easier is laughable, and it is only going to make things worse,” Bedoya said. “The only people who are going to be helped by this are this president's billionaire donors who are actively being sued by the Federal Trade Commission.”

Bedoya noted the commission is in litigation with Amazon and Meta, whose leaders, Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg, each donated $1 million for Trump’s inauguration. 

Cook firing disallowed

But the president’s power over firing members of governing boards falls short when it comes to the Federal Reserve, and when the targeted appointee is in the midst of a separate legal battle.

In a 5-4 opinion, also delivered by Roberts, the court denied the Trump administration’s application to stay a lower court ruling allowing Cook to remain a board governor while litigation plays out.

Trump fired Cook in August 2025 via post on social media after Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, now Trump’s acting head of national intelligence, accused Cook of mortgage fraud.  

“The ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts,” Roberts wrote. “In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards.”

Trump, critics note ‘procedural’ basis

Trump said the justices sent the case back to the lower court on a “strictly procedural basis.”

“We will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!” he wrote on Truth Social. 

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented. 

Thomas argued the court’s decision violates a president’s constitutional powers to remove executive officers at will.

“Cook’s office was not her ‘property’ because, in this country, government officials do not own the public offices in which they serve,” Thomas wrote. “Apparent mortgage fraud was a ‘cause’ to remove Cook. And, the statute authorizing the President to remove Cook for ‘cause’ says nothing about notice or a hearing, so it does not require notice and a hearing.”

Graham Steele, former assistant secretary of financial institutions at the Treasury Department, said during the Groundwork Collaborative call that the decision is “cold comfort.”

“It was a 5-4 decision,” Steele said. The “majority rests on a narrow set of procedural grounds, and it should have been obvious to members of the court how illegal the president's actions were in trying to remove Governor Cook. And yet this was, to use a technical legal term, ‘a squeaker’ of a case when it came down to the opinions themselves.”

Trump and the Fed

The Cook ruling is a setback in Trump’s ongoing interest in exerting influence over the central bank. 

The Senate approved Trump’s new pick for Fed chair, Kevin Warsh, last month.

Justices heard oral arguments in January over whether Trump overreached his authority in firing Cook. The arguments drew a high-profile appearance of then-Fed Chair Jerome Powell to the court.

Even conservative justices showed skepticism that Trump’s social media firing Cook was within his powers under the Federal Reserve Act, which stipulates presidents can only remove board governors “for cause.”

Trump claimed his firing of Cook, which accused her of “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter,” was not reviewable in court.

Cook, a Biden appointee, denied any wrongdoing and challenged the termination, arguing that an “unsubstantiated allegation about private mortgage applications,” submitted prior to her Senate confirmation, does not amount to cause for removal. 

Cook also argued that Trump denied her due process in not giving her notice or a chance to respond to the allegations.