Supreme Court may overturn 90-year precedent to expand Trump’s firing powers

The Supreme Court is expected to consider a landmark case that could give President Trump expanded firing powers by potentially overturning a 90-year-old precedent that limits presidential authority. Here’s what you need to know about this consequential constitutional question:

The core question

Court may reconsider fundamental separation of powers balance:

• Justices potentially revisiting Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)
• Case limited president’s ability to fire independent agency heads
• Current restrictions require “for cause” termination for certain officials
• Trump administration challenging these limitations
• Potential dramatic expansion of presidential authority
• Constitutional interpretation of “executive power” at stake
• Implications for dozens of federal agencies and commissions

The specific case

Legal challenge stems from administration actions:

• Firing of officials from independent agencies triggered litigation
• Administration arguing for broader removal powers
• Lower courts divided on presidential authority
• Circuit split created conditions for Supreme Court review
• Government explicitly asking Court to overturn precedent
• Solicitor General presenting original constitutional arguments
• Constitutional scholars filing numerous amicus briefs

The historical precedent

Humphrey’s Executor has shaped government for decades:

• 1935 decision involved FDR’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner
• Supreme Court unanimously limited presidential removal power
• Created framework for “independent” agencies
• Established “for cause” requirement for certain positions
• Distinguished between executive and quasi-legislative/judicial roles
• Foundation for modern administrative state design
• Repeatedly reaffirmed despite occasional criticism

The current Court

Composition suggests potential receptiveness to change:

• Conservative majority historically sympathetic to executive authority
• Multiple justices previously questioned Humphrey’s correctness
• Justice Kavanaugh wrote extensively on presidential powers
• Originalist approach potentially favoring executive control
• Recent decisions strengthening unitary executive theory
• Chief Justice Roberts previously skeptical of independent agencies
• Liberal wing likely to defend existing limitations

The potential impact

Ruling could fundamentally reshape federal government:

• Dozens of independent agencies potentially affected
• Federal Reserve, SEC, FCC and others could lose independence
• Career civil servants potentially facing greater political pressure
• Administrative state structure potentially transformed
• Regulatory consistency across administrations threatened
• Financial markets sensitive to independent agency stability
• Congressional oversight powers potentially diminished

The legal arguments

Case centers on competing constitutional interpretations:

• Administration citing Article II vesting executive power in president
• Challengers emphasizing congressional structuring authority
• Historical practices dating to founding era debated
• Functional versus formalist constitutional approaches
• Precedent stability versus original meaning
• Practical governance considerations versus theory
• Political accountability versus expertise independence

The political context

Case emerges amid broader administrative battles:

• Trump’s government efficiency initiatives targeting bureaucracy
• Congressional battles over executive power intensifying
• Administrative state critics gaining influence
• Presidential control over policy implementation contested
• Career civil service protections under pressure
• Political appointee-career staff tensions increasing
• Regulatory uncertainty affecting economic planning

What happens next

Several key developments are anticipated:

• Formal consideration of cert petitions expected soon
• Potential acceptance for next term’s docket
• Major business and interest groups filing briefs
• Congressional hearings on implications possible
• Agencies preparing contingency planning
• Markets assessing regulatory uncertainty
• Constitutional scholars forecasting major shift

Read more:

• Supreme Court expected to consider giving Trump firing power by overruling precedent