A pivotal challenge to a 90-year precedent
The Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments on whether to dismantle a long-standing decision that limits a president’s authority to remove leaders of independent federal agencies. The precedent, known as Humphrey’s Executor, has shaped the balance between presidential oversight and agency independence since 1935. While the immediate case focuses on the attempted removal of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, the broader implications could reshape how federal agencies operate.
Over decades, the Court has gradually narrowed the scope of the original ruling, reflecting a growing embrace of the unitary executive theory — the idea that the president holds near-complete authority over the executive branch. A ruling that weakens or overturns the precedent would underscore the Court’s shift toward expanded presidential control.
The rise of the unitary executive theory
The Trump administration has repeatedly invoked the unitary executive theory to justify removing thousands of federal employees, from senior intelligence officials to entry-level staff. Many dismissal notices included only the phrase “Art. II Constitution,” signaling a belief that the president can fire any executive-branch employee at will. Critics argue that this approach challenges nearly 150 years of civil service protections designed to prevent political interference in federal hiring and firing.
Legal scholars warn that continued reinforcement from the courts could push the federal workforce closer to an at-will employment system. Although the Slaughter case specifically concerns independent agency leadership, experts say the Court’s past decisions have already granted the administration wide latitude in personnel actions.
Implications for the civil service system
Beyond high-profile dismissals, the administration has revived proposals like “Schedule F,” a job category that would make certain federal employees easier to dismiss without typical due-process safeguards. Upcoming regulations may further challenge the foundations of the civil service system by asserting that statutory job protections conflict with presidential authority.
Some officials warn that these moves undermine the nonpartisan nature of government work, citing practices such as evaluating candidates’ loyalty to presidential priorities or removing long-serving employees based on revised background interpretations. Observers say reversing such changes would be difficult if the Supreme Court affirms broad presidential discretion.
A turning point for federal governance
If the Court fully overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the result could be a sweeping shift in the structure of federal administration. Opponents argue that such a change would dismantle more than a century of practice and risk politicizing critical government functions. Supporters counter that expanded presidential authority ensures accountability within the executive branch.
For now, the administration continues to act on its interpretation of executive power, and legal experts expect it to do so unless the Court intervenes. The upcoming decision will determine whether longstanding limits remain in place or whether the executive branch moves toward a fundamentally new model of federal governance.
