US Supreme Court weighs ending 90-year limit on presidential firing powers, boosting Trump’s authority | World News

The US Supreme Court is examining whether to overturn a 90-year-old ruling that restricts a president’s authority to remove the heads of independent federal agencies, the Associated Press (AP) reported. The case, to be argued on Monday, could further expand President Donald Trump’s powers.Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court’s conservative majority in a series of decisions that increase presidential control over the executive branch. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted in September that the conservative justices seem “raring to take that action.”

What the court is considering

Since Trump returned to office, the court has allowed him to dismiss almost all the officials he sought to remove, despite the Supreme Court’s 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which said a president cannot fire the heads of independent agencies without cause. The latest case concerns the removal of Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Other officials Trump has removed include members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, AP said. Only two officials have remained in their positions: Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and Shira Perlmutter of the Library of Congress. The court has already indicated it views the Federal Reserve differently from other agencies. Trump has said he wants Cook removed because of allegations of mortgage fraud; Cook has denied wrongdoing.

Who is affected and how the issue arose

The Humphrey’s Executor ruling has long been opposed conservatives who support the unitary executive theory. Under this view, every part of the executive branch must be fully under presidential control, including the power to fire agency heads.Story continues below this ad

AP noted that in 1988, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissenting opinion that the president holds “all of the executive power,” a line that has become influential among conservatives. Under Roberts’ leadership, the court has steadily weakened legal limits on presidential removal power.

In 2020, Roberts wrote that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception” when the court upheld Trump’s dismissal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director. In 2024, Roberts included the removal power in a l of presidential authorities that Congress cannot restrict, as part of the ruling that granted Trump immunity from prosecution for actions taken while in office.

However, AP reported that several legal horians and scholars have said the court’s reading of hory is incomplete. Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that “the text and the hory of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting.” Jane Manners of Fordham University said horians have submitted briefs to offer more context about early practices around removal power, although she added, “I’m not holding my breath.”

Why the ruling matters and what comes next

Lawyers for Slaughter argue that limits on Trump’s removal powers are supported both the Constitution and US hory. The US Justice Department, however, has told the court that Trump must be allowed to fire agency leaders freely as part of carrying out his policies. “Humphrey’s Executor was always egregiously wrong,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote, according to AP.Story continues below this ad

A second issue in the case could affect Fed governor Cook. The court will consider whether judges have the authority to reinstate someone who was removed illegally. Justice Neil Gorsuch has previously written that wrongfully fired officials may receive back pay, but reinstatement might not be possible.

The justices have also shown concern about the potential economic impact of allowing Trump to dismiss Federal Reserve leaders at will. The court will hear separate arguments in January about whether Cook can stay in her position while her legal challenge continues.