US Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Power to Fire Officials
London, UK, December 9, 2025
Separation of Powers Tested: US Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Power to Fire Officials, Poised to Expand Executive Control
Headline Points:
• The US Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Power to Fire Officials from independent agencies, threatening a 90-year-old precedent.
• The case centers on the dismissal of former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, challenging the limits of executive authority.
• The conservative majority on the court appeared inclined to support an expansion of President Trump’s power, viewing independent agencies as unaccountable.
• Liberal justices warned of the “real-world risks” and the potential for a complete politicization of nonpartisan federal agencies.
• A ruling in favor of the President would significantly enhance the executive control over the entire federal bureaucracy, upending the balance of power.
The very foundations of the American administrative state are being tested as the US Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Trump’s Power to Fire Officials from the nation’s independent agencies.
This landmark case centers on the legality of President Donald Trump’s dismissal of former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and challenges a nearly century-old New Deal-era precedent that has long shielded the heads of these agencies from direct presidential interference.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority, holding a 6-3 lead, appeared decisively poised to back a historic expansion of executive control, signalling a major shift in the balance of power within the U.S. federal government.
The core of the legal debate revolves around the concept of a “headless fourth branch” of government.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing in support of President Trump’s position, characterized these independent agencies—like the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Reserve—as being largely “unaccountable to the people.”
The conservative justices, including the sometimes swing vote of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appeared sympathetic to the view that officials exercising “massive power” over industry and individual liberty should not be shielded from the democratic mandate of the President.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed the argument that the ability to hire and, crucially, to fire, is essential for a President to ensure the executive branch is responsive to the popular will.
A ruling supporting this perspective would effectively overturn the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision, which established that Congress could restrict the President’s removal power to safeguard the nonpartisan function of these agencies.
Conversely, the liberal wing of the court voiced strong alarm over the potential consequences.
Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned of the “real-world risks that are palpable,” arguing that extending such unfettered removal authority would lead to the wholesale politicization of agencies intended to operate based on expertise and regulatory stability, not political allegiance.
Amit Agarwal, representing the former FTC member, cautioned that if the President gains the ability to fire agency leaders “at will,” then “everything is on the chopping block,” threatening the long-term neutrality and predictability of US regulatory policy.
The outcome of the case is critical for the future structure of the U.S. government. If the Supreme Court supports the expansion of Trump’s power to fire officials, it would represent a decisive victory for the “unitary executive theory,” which posits that the President possesses sole authority over the entire executive branch.
This would grant the President unprecedented ability to quickly reshape the regulatory landscape and staff key positions with personal loyalists, fundamentally altering the checks and balances designed to limit presidential power.
As the justices deliberate, the nation awaits a ruling that promises to be one of the most consequential decisions on the separation of powers in decades, defining the scope of presidential authority for the foreseeable future.
