The Supreme Court has fundamentally altered the constitutional architecture governing federal independent agencies, issuing a pair of rulings that expand presidential authority over officials who have long operated at a deliberate distance from the White House. For businesses that rely on the predictability and technical expertise of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the decisions introduce a new layer of political and regulatory uncertainty that warrants careful attention.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned a 91-year-old precedent that had shielded members of independent agencies from at-will presidential removal. The ruling upheld President Trump's March 2025 firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause, effectively dismantling the for-cause removal protections that had defined the independent agency model for nearly a century. Commissioners and similarly situated officials across a range of agencies may now serve at the pleasure of the President, a change that could reshape the pace, direction, and continuity of federal enforcement and rulemaking.
In a separate 5-4 ruling, the Court permitted Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in her position, at least for the time being. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined the three liberal justices in that outcome, signaling that the Federal Reserve may occupy a constitutionally distinct position from other independent agencies. While the Court did not fully articulate the contours of that distinction, the ruling suggests that monetary policy institutions may retain a measure of insulation that other regulators no longer enjoy.
For regulated businesses, the practical implications are significant. Enforcement priorities at agencies like the FTC may shift more quickly with changes in administration, and long-running investigations, pending rulemakings, and settled interpretive guidance could all be more susceptible to reversal. Companies operating in sectors touched by independent agency oversight should anticipate greater volatility in the regulatory environment and consider how compliance strategies, litigation posture, and government affairs efforts may need to adapt. Boards and general counsel should also reassess how policy risk is factored into planning, disclosures, and long-term investment decisions.
This newsletter is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Businesses affected by these developments should consult qualified counsel for guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.