Supreme Court Ends Independent Agency Protection, Spares the Fed by One Vote
The Supreme Court has effectively ended ninety years of independent agency protection for federal officials. In a pair of decisions issued the same day, June 29, 2026, the Court ruled that the President may remove the heads of independent agencies at will — while carving out a narrow, single-vote exception for the Federal Reserve.
Trump v. Slaughter Overturns Humphrey's Executor
In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 majority authored by Chief Justice Roberts overturned Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that had allowed Congress to shield certain agency heads from removal except for cause. The Court held that the Federal Trade Commission's for-cause removal protection for its commissioners violates the separation of powers, reasoning that the Constitution vests the entire executive power in the President and that officers exercising executive authority must remain subject to presidential removal.
For ninety years, Humphrey's Executor stood for the idea that certain agencies — built around expertise and independence from raw politics — could operate at arm's length from the White House. That model is now gone for agencies like the FTC.
Trump v. Cook Preserves the Federal Reserve — For Now
The same day, in a separate 5-4 decision, the Court reached the opposite result for the Federal Reserve. In Trump v. Cook, Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson in holding that Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook — the first Fed governor targeted for removal in the central bank's history — could not be removed without due process. The Court reasoned that accepting the administration's position would effectively "transform the Federal Reserve's for-cause protection into at-will employment," pointing to the Fed's unique historical structure, tracing back to the First and Second Banks of the United States, as grounds for treating it differently from other independent agencies.
Cook keeps her seat for now, but the ruling comes with an asterisk: the administration can still pursue her removal if it provides the process the Court says she is owed.
Two Rulings, One Day, Real Tension
The lineups tell their own story. In Slaughter, Roberts had the Court's full conservative bloc. In Cook, he had only Justice Kavanaugh from that bloc, joined by the Court's three Democratic-appointed justices. Justice Barrett, who joined the majority in Slaughter but dissented in Cook, argued the two rulings sit in tension with each other — a view echoed by legal commentators in the days since the decisions came down.
What This Means for Federal Employees
The agencies federal employees turn to when they've been wronged — the EEOC, the NLRB, and others — were built on the same theory of independence the Court just narrowed. When for-cause protection disappears at the top of an agency, questions open up about how insulated that agency's operations, priorities, and enforcement posture will remain going forward. It is too early to say how any individual agency will respond, and each situation will depend on its own facts.
Practical takeaway: If you have a pending matter before an agency affected by this shift, or you're concerned about how leadership changes might affect an ongoing case, this is a good time to check in with counsel about your specific situation rather than wait and see.
If you have questions about how these developments could affect your case or your agency, Southworth PC represents federal employees nationwide and is available for a consultation.
Legal Disclaimer: This content is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Federal employment situations are fact-specific and time-sensitive. Please consult a qualified federal employment attorney about your specific situation.