For nearly a century, independent federal agencies have operated with a degree of insulation from presidential control. That changed dramatically on June 29, 2026.
In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), holding that Congress generally cannot shield leaders of executive agencies from presidential removal through "for-cause" protections. The decision significantly expands presidential authority over independent federal agencies and is poised to reshape how agencies—including federal agencies that govern employment relationships, like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and others—operate going forward.
For employers, the ruling represents one of the most consequential administrative law decisions in decades.
The End of Humphrey’s Executor
The dispute arose after President Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter before her term expired despite clear statutory language permitting removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that FTC commissioners exercise executive power and therefore must remain accountable to the President. The Court held that Congress cannot constitutionally prevent a President from removing executive officers who carry out federal law by passing statutes restricting the President’s removal authority. This overrules the nearly 90-year-old framework established in Humphrey's Executor.
The Court did preserve one narrow exception, suggesting that certain uniquely structured institutions—most notably the Federal Reserve—may warrant different constitutional treatment. But for most independent agencies, the constitutional landscape has fundamentally changed.
Why The Decision Matters Beyond the FTC
Although the case involved the FTC, its reasoning extends well beyond consumer protection.
Many of the federal agencies that employers interact with are led by commissioners or board members who traditionally enjoyed fixed terms and statutory protection from removal. Those protections now appear constitutionally vulnerable.
Among the agencies most likely to be affected are:
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
- Federal Election Commission (FEC)
- Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
The practical consequence is straightforward: future Presidents will likely have substantially greater authority to remove commissioners appointed by prior administrations and install officials who align with their policy priorities.
As a result, agency leadership—and therefore agency priorities—may change much more quickly following presidential elections.
What the Decision Means for the NLRB
The implications for the National Labor Relations Board may be especially significant.
Unlike Cabinet agencies, the Board has historically been structured to promote continuity through staggered five-year terms and bipartisan membership. That structure historically slowed dramatic policy shifts between administrations. However, in the last twenty years, due to the increased power of the NLRB General Counsel’s Office and a much more partisan way of governing our country, the policy shifts in the NLRB from administration to administration have been substantial.
Trump v. Slaughter materially weakens any institutional stability that might still be left and grants the President much greater power to shape federal labor law.
With NLRB Board members now being able to be removed at-will by the President, incoming Presidents will be able to reshape the Board immediately rather than waiting years for vacancies to occur. In addition, it remains unclear whether or not the provision in Section 3 of the National Labor Relations Act that provides that the Board shall consist of not more than three members of the same political party is also an unconstitutional restriction on the President’s authority over the administrative agency. See 29 U.S.C. § 153(a). This could be the next basis for challenge.
In any case, we expect that the Trump v. Slaughter case is likely to result in continued and even greater ping-pong interpretations on many important issues including:
- employee handbook rules like confidentiality, social media policy, conduct rules;
- the scope and breadth of what is considered protected concerted activity;
- captive audience meetings; bargaining obligations;
- independent contractor status;
- joint employer standards; and
- available remedies under the NLRA.
Employers have long experienced significant swings in labor policy between administrations. Those swings are now likely to occur faster—and become even more pronounced.
How the Decision Also Raises Questions for the EEOC
The decision's reach extends well beyond labor law.
The EEOC has traditionally operated as a bipartisan commission with staggered terms designed to ensure continuity across administrations. Although each agency presents unique statutory questions, Trump v. Slaughter strongly suggests that removal protections for commissioners exercising executive authority face serious constitutional obstacles.
For employers, this means enforcement priorities in areas such as discrimination, workplace investigations, and compliance may become increasingly tied to the political priorities of the sitting President, with wide varying interpretations from administration to administration on issues such as transgender protections, DEI, disability accommodation and other equal employment rights issues.
The Next in Line: Wilcox v. Trump
Perhaps the most immediate consequence of Trump v. Slaughter involves the pending litigation over former NLRB Member Gwynne Wilcox.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay permitting President Trump to remove Wilcox while litigation continued, signaling skepticism toward the constitutionality of the NLRB's removal protections. At the time, however, the Court emphasized that the stay was not a final decision on the merits.
Now, the landscape has changed.
By expressly overruling Humphrey's Executor, the Court has removed the principal precedent supporting statutory removal protections for members of independent agencies.
While Wilcox technically presents separate legal questions – including issues unique to the NLRA and the requested remedies – the constitutional foundation underlying Wilcox's reinstatement claim has largely disappeared. Although nothing is certain until the Court issues its opinion, Trump v. Slaughter suggests that the Supreme Court is extremely likely to reject Wilcox's challenge to her removal.
A decision upholding the President's authority to remove NLRB members would cement presidential control over one of the nation's most consequential labor agencies and likely accelerate changes in Board composition whenever administrations change.
Looking Ahead
For employers, the practical takeaway is clear: federal agency policy may become increasingly responsive to presidential elections, with leadership changes—and corresponding shifts in enforcement priorities—occurring far more rapidly than under the previous framework. CDF’s Labor Management Relations Practice Group will continue to monitor developments, including the anticipated decision in Wilcox v. Trump, and provide updates on what these changes mean for private employers.
