WASHINGTON— In a case with broad implications for the NCUA board, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress cannot restrict a president’s authority to remove leaders of certain independent federal agencies, handing President Donald Trump a major victory and overturning a cornerstone precedent that has shaped federal regulation for nearly 90 years.
In a separate ruling, the Supreme Court ruled Trump cannot fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board.
In Slaughter v. Trump, the court voted 6-3 the president has the authority to remove members of multimember independent commissions and that that authority does not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers, allowing Trump’s dismissal of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter to stand.
The ruling overturns or substantially narrows Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the Supreme Court’s precedent-setting 1935 decision that upheld congressional protections for leaders of independent agencies and which has long been given deference.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 49-page dissent that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today,” she wrote, “the Court discards” the “democratic regime” created by the Constitution “in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result,” she concluded, “is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”
America’s Credit Unions Responds
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision provides clarity on the president’s power regarding political appointees on multimember boards at independent agencies. While this ruling will impact the separate legal challenge regarding NCUA board member removals, America’s Credit Unions has consistently advocated for a full, three-person board to ensure stability and effective oversight for the industry. We urge the President to put forward nominees for the two vacant seats and will continue to keep credit unions informed as this ruling is applied to the NCUA board,” America’s Credit Unions President/CEO Scott Simpson said in a statement.
Firing Led to Suit
The dispute arose after Trump fired Slaughter in March 2025. The FTC Act states commissioners may be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” Trump did not allege any of those grounds, instead asserting that Slaughter’s continued service was inconsistent with his administration’s priorities.
Slaughter sued, arguing the firing violated federal law. A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed and ordered her reinstatement.
The Supreme Court’s ruling reversed those decisions and significantly expanded presidential authority over agencies that traditionally have operated with a degree of independence from the White House, such as NCUA, and is expected to reverberate throughout Washington.
The decision likely dooms a lawsuit filed by former NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka, who took action afterTrump removed them from the agency’s board in April 2025. Their legal claims closely mirror those raised by Slaughter.
Lower Court Likely to Abide by Decision
Ann Petros, vice president of policy engagement and credit union operations at America’s Credit Unions, had previously said the Supreme Court’s decision would likely guide how the D.C. Circuit handles the Harper-Otsuka litigation.
Legal observers said a ruling for the administration would make it significantly more difficult for Harper and Otsuka to regain their positions and could effectively end challenges to their removal.
Had they been reinstated, the NCUA board would have shifted to a 2-1 Democratic majority, with NCUA board nominee the lone Republican on the board.
The case was widely viewed as one of the most consequential separation-of-powers disputes in decades, and critics have warned that the decision means agencies’ focus and priorities will now swing every time there is a change in the party holding the White House. During oral arguments, the court’s liberal justices warned that eliminating removal protections could subject regulators to political pressure and undermine Congress’ ability to create expert agencies insulated from partisan changes in administration.
A ‘Dried Husk’
During oral arguments in late 2025, several conservative justices expressed skepticism toward the structure of independent agencies. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested some agencies operate as a de facto “fourth branch of government,” while Chief Justice John Roberts referred to Humphrey’s Executor as a “dried husk.”
The ruling marks a significant shift in constitutional law and strengthens presidential control over agencies that regulate broad sectors of the U.S. economy.
Legal analysts have said the decision is likely to trigger additional litigation as courts determine how broadly the ruling applies across the federal government and whether any agencies retain protections from at-will presidential removal.
Ruling in Federal Reserve Case
Separately, the court voted 5-4 against President Donald Trump, who attempted to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook for cause last August. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s three liberal justices in siding with Cook’s argument.
“Acceptance of the Government’s position would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment – an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference,” the court wrote.
