Supreme Court rules Trump can fire FTC commissioners in 6-3 decision

The Supreme Court may have done more than give President Donald Trump new firing power on Monday; It may have opened the door to a much broader challenge to the modern administrative state, the sprawling network of federal institutions that many conservatives have long called the “deep state.”

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that Trump could legally fire Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, overturning much of the nearly 90-year-old Humphrey’s Executor precedent that protects independent agency officials from voluntary removal.

While Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion was that FTC leaders should remain accountable to the president for the agency’s exercise of executive authority, Gorsuch argued that the decision raises a broader constitutional question about whether Congress can continue to allow executive agencies to exercise broad legislative and judicial powers.

“The powers of the fourth branch still exist; they have recently been transferred to the President,” Gorsuch wrote in the concurring opinion.

SCOTUS Accepts TRUMP’S PROPOSAL TO FIRE FTC COMMISSION AS WANTS – A FIGHT THAT COULD OVERTAKE A 90-YEAR-OLD PRACTICE

This observation may be the next important frontier in the Supreme Court’s ongoing efforts to reshape the modern administrative state.

For decades, independent agencies such as the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission and the National Labor Relations Board have combined many government functions under one roof. They investigate alleged violations, write legal regulations, and decide on enforcement actions through administrative proceedings.

With Humphrey’s Executive now rejected, these institutions will remain intact, but their leadership will be subject to presidential control if they exercise executive authority. Gorsuch questioned whether Congress could continue to delegate broad legislative and judicial authority to agencies that are now clearly under presidential control.

“The authority to prescribe new regulatory offenses still exists,” Gorsuch wrote. “The ability to adjudicate disputes internally remains, but now the house is white.”

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, said Gorsuch’s concurrence signals the next phase of the case.

CONGRESS EXPANDED GOVERNANCE – ONLY FOR TRUMP TO GIVE UP MOST OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

President Donald Trump speaks at the Rose Garden Club dinner at the White House in Washington, DC, on June 25, 2026. He hosted US farmers from Iowa in the newly renovated Rose Garden. (Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images)

“I think the next step in these types of cases is not going to be looking at layoffs, but making sure that all of these administrative agencies actually fall into one of our constitutional hives,” Severino said. “Are they the executive branch, the legislative branch or the judiciary? You can’t handle all of that.”

He said that while Monday’s decision restores presidential control over the executive branches, it does not resolve whether those same agencies can continue to exercise quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers that Congress has delegated for decades.

“There’s still a lot of work to be done to go back and remove activities that are not actually executive related in nature from these agencies that are now strictly under executive control,” Severino said.

Haley Proctor, a professor of constitutional law at Notre Dame Law School, similarly described Gorsuch’s opinion as a road map for future legal challenges.

EXPERTS SAY LEGAL CHALLENGES EXPECTED ON TRUMP’S ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS AT REGULATORY LEVEL

“I think what Justice Gorsuch is pointing to is that this is a first step toward rethinking the way the administrative state is authorized and structured,” Proctor said.

Rather than merely expanding presidential power, the memorandum raises the possibility that Congress may have to roll back powers it has delegated to agencies or return certain responsibilities to Article III courts, Proctor said.

“If we are concerned about the amount of power that the Federal Trade Commission has, then the next step would be to rethink giving that power to the Federal Trade Commission because some of the decisions it makes could be taken by Congress, and some of the decisions it makes could be made by the courts,” he said.

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California. (Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Record)

The majority opinion did not resolve these issues. Instead, Roberts limited the Court’s authority to the power to impeach the president, concluding that the FTC was “unquestionably exercising executive authority” and that the commissioners should therefore remain accountable to the president.

The court stopped short of deciding how much power Congress can give executive agencies to make rules or resolve disputes, saying questions involving agencies like the Federal Reserve will have to wait.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

But Gorsuch suggested that future cases could go much further, arguing that the Constitution provides the tools to dismantle much of the modern administrative state. He noted several constitutional doctrines that could be used to sharply limit the powers of independent federal agencies and return lawmaking authority to Congress and judicial power to the courts.

“The only sure path from here is to finish the journey we started today and return legislative and judicial powers where they belong: to Congress and the courts,” Gorsuch said. he wrote.