John Roberts fought for decades to get rid of the 1935 precedent that had limited a president’s firing authority
For more than 40 years, since his service as a young Reagan administration lawyer, Chief Justice John Roberts has pushed for an extraordinarily powerful U.S. president who could remove the heads of independent agencies at any time.
in one Note to White House lawyer In 1983, Roberts argued that “it is time to reassess the constitutional anomaly of independent institutions.”
When he was appointed chief justice in 2005, he began laying the groundwork to overturn Supreme Court precedent that allowed Congress to limit the president’s firing power.
“Without such authority, the President could not be held fully accountable for carrying out his responsibilities; the job would end up elsewhere,” Roberts wrote in a 2010 lawsuit.
Roberts’ effort culminated Monday, prompting the majority to reverse the 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States; this case had allowed Congress to restrict the president’s power to remove agency heads to ensure their independence. From his seat in the center of the high bench, the chief justice observed that the court was steadily moving away from its 1935 precedent, which he insisted was at odds with constitutional history and structure.
“If there’s one more thing left of Humphrey, we’ll overrule it,” he said.
Debates in the regulatory arena may seem dry compared to the Supreme Court’s fights centering on the Second Amendment, abortion and reproductive rights, religion and immigration. But the work of independent organizations in the United States, for better or worse, cuts across much of American life by imposing obligations on businesses and individuals to advance the public interest in the areas of public health and safety and consumer protection.
Expanding on his position in office, Roberts wrote, “Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President.” 36 page opinion. “The President is by no means very powerful. But he is not impotent either. The ‘executive authority’ of the United States is vested solely in him.”
Roberts’ expansive approach to presidential power has manifested itself in many cases over the years; Perhaps most importantly, in 2024, the chief justice and other conservatives granted Trump significant immunity from criminal prosecution, citing the president’s “simply and preemptively” authority.
His long-term effort to thwart independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, which was at the center of Monday’s decision, is not unlike his successive moves Limiting the scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That effort culminated at the beginning of this term when the court rolled back federal protections for Black and Latino voters.
Roberts’ strategic patience paid off. In both, he was helped by additional appointments of like-minded conservative justices who formed a 6-3 majority.
And just like that, the three liberal justices again had to simply dissent.
On Monday, Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a vocal dissent for left-wing justices, underscoring the importance of insulating independent regulators from pressure from a president who might want to violate fair-trade regulations overseen by the FTC as well as workplace safety, nuclear energy and chemical hazards that regulators govern.
Sotomayor said Congress has long relied on the 1935 precedent to create a functioning system of regulatory government.
“The Court grants the President a power unknown even to the British Crown against whom the Founders rebelled,” Sotomayor said. wrote“To elevate the duty to see to the faithful execution of the laws above its once equal branches by transforming it into a license to act contrary to those laws.”
Supports presidential control but tears down Fed
Congressional legislation establishing the Federal Trade Commission and other independent agencies mandates specific terms of office for commissioners and allows removal only for certain misconduct defined as “inefficiency, dereliction of duty, or malfeasance.”
When Trump returned for his second term, he set out to unseat Democratic-appointed commissioners at a number of agencies, including Rebecca Slaughter, who was in the middle of a seven-year term at the FTC. The Commission was established in 1914 to protect consumers and take action against unfair business practices.
Slaughter received an email from Trump in March 2025 stating that his “continued service at the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”
Lower court judges sided with Slaughter, who tried to claim his position by relying on 1935 precedent. In appealing, the Trump administration argued that it was time to completely reverse the nine-decade-old ruling by removing language from Roberts’ past decisions.
Trump officials, along with Roberts and many of his fellow conservatives, embrace the “unitary executive theory” that gives him power over the vast bureaucracy.
The judges made an arrangement Exception for the Federal Reserve on MondayRoberts has a separate Trump v. As he said in the Cook case, this builds on the country’s long-standing tradition of an independent central bank.
At the press conference he held after the case, Slaughter condemned the decision taken against him and the Fed’s exception.
“In some way Wall Street is special and gets special treatment, but otherwise the institutions that deal with ordinary Americans don’t,” Slaughter said.
After oral arguments in his case last December and statements from conservatives who hold the majority, it seemed inevitable that the Trump administration would prevail. And given Roberts’ track record in transforming this area of the law, it would seem that he would write this opinion himself.
unknown content element
–
In the courtroom on Monday, Roberts began by explaining that James Madison took the lead among America’s founders in designing the full executive power given to the president to appoint and supervise those who enforce the nation’s laws.
The chief justice portrayed Humphrey’s Guardian as an outlier. The case began when President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire the Federal Trade Commission appointee of his predecessor, President Herbert Hoover. Supreme Court It was decided unanimously The President has no authority unless authorized by Congress.
This decision undermined the 1926 Myers v. United States decision, which allowed the president to fire postmasters without congressional consent.
Roberts established a firm concept of executive power throughout his time working in government, first for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and then as a lawyer. He sought what he called a “seminal” return to Myers’ decision.
On Monday, he highlighted previous decisions in 2010 and 2020 that lifted Congressional restrictions on presidential impeachment and relied on the 1926 Myers case.
From the bench on Monday, Myers noted that his decision was written by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had previously been president of the United States. Roberts explained that Taft believed that giving executive power to the president essentially meant giving him the power to enforce laws, including the power to remove officials over whom he had no responsibility or control.
While Roberts inflated the 1926 decision, Sotomayor minimized it.
“If Myers is the ‘best’ support for the majority’s position, his theory is a castle built on sand. First, as the majority acknowledged, Myers did not address the for-cause impeachment protection; the challenged legislation instead required the Senate’s consent to impeach.”
His harshest comments came as he mocked Roberts’ logic of presidential responsibility.
Sotomayor, who has frequently criticized President Trump, suggested that the decision would lead to “instability” rather than “accountability.”
“I’m going to guess,” he said, looking from his page to the courtroom audience, “…maybe you should too.”
“The president is emerging with more power than ever before,” Sotomayor concluded.
Roberts seemed calm as ever: Giving the president more power was exactly his goal.
For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at: CNN.com
