The Supreme Court’s June ruling in Trump v. Slaughter dismantled a nearly century-old precedent protecting leaders of independent agencies from at-will firing, fundamentally shifting the balance between presidential control and agency autonomy according to legal scholars. Ten days after the decision, President Donald Trump fired two Democratic commissioners from the Election Assistance Commission, a bipartisan federal commission that advises states on best practices for helping Americans to participate in voting.
The Constitutional Debate Over Unitary Executive Theory
At the center of the legal dispute is the scope of presidential authority under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution. According to the unitary executive theory developed by conservative lawyers in the 1980s, the president holds exclusive authority and unrestricted removal power over the entire executive branch. Proponents argue this structure ensures maximum accountability to voters.
“The people have a greater say now in the way the laws are carried out,” says John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a proponent of the unitary executive theory.
Conversely, critics contend that equating presidential accountability with democratic accountability ignores the specialized, apolitical nature of regulatory oversight. Peter Shane, a constitutional law professor at New York University, disputes the court’s logic. “No president can personally embody all of the positions of the majority of voters on every single issue facing the executive branch,” Shane says.
Origins and Evolution of Independent Regulatory Agencies
Congress established dozens of independent and quasi-independent agencies outside Cabinet-level departments to ensure decisions relied on specialized, apolitical knowledge and continuity rather than the priorities of a single administration. Organizations such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) were designed with structural safeguards to insulate them from day-to-day presidential influence.
Historically, these safeguards included fixed and staggered terms, multimember bipartisan boards, and for-cause removal protections. William Kovacic, former FTC chairman, notes that these mechanisms historically allowed board members to choose policies they believed to be “the best policies for the nation” without fearing immediate dismissal. During Kovacic’s tenure as chairman in 2008 and 2009, the FTC recovered $114 million from a credit card company to settle allegations that it violated federal law and subsequently barred a large retailer from making unsubstantiated claims about a product it is selling.
Future Impacts on Policy Stability and Agency Expertise
Legal scholars predict the fallout from Trump v. Slaughter will extend far beyond the Trump administration, increasing policy fluctuation as successive presidents use expanded removal powers to reshape regulatory boards. David Lewis, a Vanderbilt University political science professor and author of Presidents and the Politics of Agency Design, warns that perpetual removal and replacement of opposing-party agency heads will amplify policy flip-flopping in a polarized political climate, leaving businesses particularly vulnerable.
Additional analysts suggest that eliminating removal protections will decrease agency expertise. Terry Moe, a professor emeritus of political science at Stanford University, predicts that Mr. Trump will continue to appoint officials who prioritize loyalty to him over legal requirements and professional standards. “Really what this amounts to is that there won’t be any independent agencies anymore,” Moe says.
Supporters of the ruling maintain a different outlook. Yoo contends that the decision fosters a more transparent and accountable government by aligning administrative actions directly with the nation’s elected representative.
Keep reading