WASHINGTON – A recent Supreme Court decision has intensified the debate surrounding presidential authority, specifically the extent to which the President can remove officials leading independent agencies. The ruling, which allows the President to fire the heads of agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, has been met with both support and strong opposition.

Critics argue that this decision undermines the fundamental principles of the U.S. constitutional framework.They point to the framers’ commitment to checks and balances, their rejection of monarchical rule, and their intention to vest policymaking power in Congress. Opponents argue that the ruling disregards these core tenets.

The Supreme Court first addressed this issue in the 1926 case, Myers v. United States. In that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, a former president himself, asserted that Congress could not restrict the President’s ability to remove an Oregon postmaster. Taft reasoned that “the power to remove inferior executive officers … is an incident of the power to appoint them.”

However, less than a decade later, the court shifted its stance in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, ruling that the Constitution does not grant the President unlimited removal power, particularly over certain officials.This case arose from President Franklin Roosevelt’s dismissal of the head of the Federal trade Commission.

For decades, Humphrey’s Executor remained largely unchallenged until Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both former executive branch officials, joined the Supreme court.

With a strengthened conservative majority, the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on the President’s power to remove members of the Public company Accounting Oversight Board in 2009.

in 2018, following the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, another executive branch alumnus, the court struck down the “good cause” removal restriction for the director of the Consumer financial Protection Bureau.

Instead of explicitly overturning Humphrey’s Executor, the justices distinguished these agencies from the Federal Trade Commission, arguing that the leaders of the former where protected by a “two-layer” removal system, while the latter was headed by a single individual rather than a multimember board.

‘massive change in the law’

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the Presidents … he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.”

Because Humphrey’s Executor was still considered valid law, district courts initially ruled in 2025 that the firings of Wilcox and Harris were unlawful. Both Wilcox and Harris were members of the NLRB and MSPB respectively.

On april 9, 2025, president Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting a stay on the district court decisions. The supreme Court granted this request on May 22, pending further proceedings in the lower courts.

While the court did not rule on the removal statute’s constitutionality, the decision is considered a important victory for President Trump, perhaps allowing him to remove the heads of any independent agency, and possibly impacting lower-level civil servants.

In its unsigned order, the Supreme Court invoked the unitary executive theory, asserting that “Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the Presidents … he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.” The court notably omitted any reference to Humphrey’s Executor,leaving its precedential value uncertain.

The Supreme Court clarified that its holding does not extend to the Federal Reserve Board,describing it as a “uniquely structured,quasi-private entity” that remains insulated from executive control through removal.

This explicit exception addresses concerns raised by litigants and political commentators regarding the potential economic repercussions of presidential control over the Federal reserve’s chairman.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, criticized the majority for effectively overruling Humphrey’s Executor “by fiat,” particularly through the shadow docket, without full briefing or oral argument. She argued that this “short-circuiting” of the “usual deliberative process” is an inappropriate method for enacting such a “massive change in the law.”

The shadow of Humphrey’s Executor

What are the potential consequences?

The National Labor Relations board is currently paralyzed, and the Merit systems Protection Board is substantially hampered, with both lacking the necessary quorum to function effectively. Lower courts will grapple with the legal status of Humphrey’s Executor as they adjudicate cases related to the firings of Harris, Wilcox, and other officials.

President Trump intends to continue dismissing federal employees, even as the governance struggles to rehire others.

The Supreme Court, once again asked to make significant legal changes via its emergency docket, will need to provide a more comprehensive explanation than the brief paragraphs offered in the Wilcox and Harris firings ruling.

If the court ultimately overturns Humphrey’s Executor, Justice Kagan’s dissent, echoed by others, warns that granting the President complete control over the heads of more than 50 independent agencies-agencies responsible for areas ranging from financial regulation to environmental protection and nuclear safety-could shift their focus from public service to presidential favor, significantly impacting the lives of Americans.