REPORT: SCOTUS Overturns 90 Years of Case Law and Grants Trump the Power to Remove Officials

Maxime Marquette

2026-07-20 15:33:05

The dismissal that sparked the legal battle

In March 2025, Donald Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner at the FTC, as well as Alvaro Bedoya, another commissioner at the same agency. These abrupt firings immediately became the subject of legal challenges, with both commissioners arguing that the law establishing the FTC required valid grounds—misconduct, incapacity, or negligence—for their removal.

Slaughter refused to step down, continuing to go to the office and present herself as a sitting member of the commission. She thus became the embodiment of an unprecedented constitutional standoff between the executive branch and independent agencies—a battle that reached all the way to the nation’s highest court.

The Logic of the Conservative Majority

The majority of six conservative justices ruled that the legal provisions protecting agency commissioners from arbitrary dismissal violated the principle of separation of powers as they interpret it: executive power belongs entirely to the president, and any limitation on his ability to control his subordinates is unconstitutional. This so-called “unitary executive” interpretation is a long-standing conservative doctrine, but one that has never been applied with such brutality.

The three dissenting justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—condemned a decision that transforms the president into a de facto monarch of federal agencies, capable of muzzling any independent regulatory oversight on a mere whim of political convenience. Their scathing dissent will go down in history as a solemn warning.

Rebecca Slaughter is not just a name in a legal case. She is a woman who did her job, who refused to leave, who fought to the very end. The fact that the court ruled against her on the merits does not change what she represents: institutional resistance in the face of the concentration of power. One can respect that, even while disagreeing with the doctrine.

The Fed Spared: A 5-to-4 Split Decision

Lisa Cook and the Central Bank Exception

In a separate decision handed down at the same time, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to block the immediate dismissal of Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor. This narrower decision establishes an explicit exception for the Fed, whose independence is deemed necessary for global financial stability.

The majority’s reasoning in this case is pragmatic: global financial markets depend on the credibility and autonomy of the U.S. central bank. Allowing the president to fire Federal Reserve governors on a political whim would send a devastating signal to investors worldwide and destabilize bond markets, currencies, and interest rates internationally.

An exception that raises as many questions as it resolves

But this exception for the Fed opens a conceptual Pandora’s box. If the Court can decide that an agency is too systemically important to be subject to absolute presidential control, who decides which agency next deserves such protection? The SEC? The FDIC? The CFPB? The criteria remain vague, which guarantees a coming wave of litigation in federal courts.

It should also be noted that the 5-4 vote on the Fed reveals divisions within the conservative majority itself. Justice John Roberts, it is said, was one of the voices in the majority that protected Lisa Cook, confirming his role as a pragmatic arbiter within an otherwise deeply ideological court. This nuance is crucial for what lies ahead.

With the Fed saved at the last minute, the financial world can breathe a sigh of relief. Imagine for a moment Trump replacing the Federal Reserve governors with loyalists: interest rates would become a political tool, the dollar would lose its credibility, and all of Europe would suffer as a result. This time, pragmatism has prevailed. But for how long?

Federal Agencies in the Crosshairs: Who Is at Risk?

FTC, SEC, NLRB, CFPB: The Four Pillars Under Threat

The June 29, 2026, SCOTUS decision directly exposes several major independent agencies to a potential political purge. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates competition and protects consumers, is already directly affected, as its case served as the basis for the ruling. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the guardian of the stock markets, is now vulnerable. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which protects union rights, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have joined the list of potential targets.

These four agencies regulate entire sectors of the U.S. economy, from labor rights to the oversight of major tech companies. Placing them under the direct political control of the executive branch means their mandates can be rendered meaningless as soon as a president hostile to regulation takes office—which is precisely the case with Trump.

The tech industry and Wall Street are quietly rejoicing

Behind the scenes on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the decision was met with barely concealed satisfaction. An FTC without independent commissioners is an agency that will no longer be able to block massive mergers involving major tech or pharmaceutical companies. A CFPB under presidential control is a regulator that can be neutralized as soon as its investigations become too embarrassing for the big banks.

Lobbyists have worked for years to weaken these agencies. The Supreme Court has just handed them, for free, what no lobbying campaign could have achieved: constitutional legitimization of the political subordination of regulators. This is a significant ideological and economic victory for the deregulationist camp.

Every time Trump weakens a regulatory agency, millions of ordinary consumers pay the price. Large corporations have lawyers to protect them. Workers, small investors, and families in debt—they have only these agencies to rely on. And now, even that can be taken away from them by presidential decree.

Ninety Years of Legal Doctrine: What Remains of Humphrey's Executor?

The 1935 Precedent in Its Historical Context

In 1935, the Supreme Court ruled in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that President Roosevelt could not dismiss at will William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner under the Hoover administration, whose term of office was protected by law. This decision laid the groundwork for the idea that quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative agencies could exist outside the direct control of the executive branch.

This precedent had allowed for the emergence of a vast, independent administrative state—sometimes criticized for its opacity and bureaucracy, but also praised for its stability and resistance to short-term partisan pressures. Ninety years of case law, academic doctrine, and institutional practice have just been swept aside by a ruling drafted in the spirit of the unitary executive.

Scholars and former judges in shock

Leading constitutional scholars immediately denounced the decision. For many—even those who criticized the excessive scope of Humphrey’s Executor—overturning a nine–decade-old precedent without transition or safeguards constitutes a breach of judicial method as serious as the substantive breach itself. The doctrine of stare decisis—adherence to established precedents—is supposed to be one of the cornerstones of the stability of American law.

Some observers point out that the same conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, demonstrating that it does not hesitate to erase historic precedents when its doctrine demands it. The Roberts Court is reshaping constitutional America at a pace that even its harshest critics did not anticipate.

What deeply troubles me is the method. One can debate the merits of the unitary executive as a constitutional theory. But overturning ninety years of practice without offering any transitional mechanisms or residual protections amounts to judicial brutality. Major reforms are carried out with safeguards—not by razing everything to the ground all at once.

Political Reactions: Democrats Devastated, Republicans Triumphant

The American Left on High Alert

Democrats in Congress immediately denounced the decision as an existential threat to American democracy. The Senate Minority Leader described the president’s transformation into a “constitutional king,” capable of exploiting the entire regulatory apparatus for partisan political ends. Calls for constitutional reforms have already emerged, though their feasibility in a divided Congress remains extremely limited.

Consumer advocacy organizations, labor unions such as the AFL-CIO, and progressive groups have announced emergency campaigns to raise public awareness. But in the face of a constitutional ruling by the Supreme Court, legal options are virtually nonexistent. It would take a constitutional amendment or a law ingenious enough to circumvent the new interpretation—two options that seem out of reach in the short term.

Republicans Celebrate a Historic Doctrinal Victory

On the Republican side, the mood was one of celebration. Trump posted on Truth Social that the decision represented a “BIG WIN” for the presidency and for the American people, asserting that unelected bureaucrats would no longer be able to block the president’s will. Conservative think tanks such as the Federalist Society hailed the decision as the culmination of decades of doctrinal work.

Republican senators called the decision a “restoration of constitutional order,” asserting that independent agencies have always been a democratic anomaly—powerful entities beyond any electoral accountability. This narrative will now be the mantra of the American right for years to come, regardless of the practical consequences.

There is a cruel irony in the Republican rhetoric about the “democratic accountability” of agencies. These same politicians who claim to want more democracy are in the process of centralizing all power in the hands of a single man. That is not democracy. It is the concentration of power with a nice constitutional veneer.

Impact on U.S. Consumers and Markets

Weakened Consumer Protection

The FTC and the CFPB are the two agencies that most directly protect ordinary consumers: through antitrust investigations, oversight of predatory lending practices, and review of corporate mergers. If these agencies come under the direct political control of the White House, their independence in conducting investigations and imposing penalties will be structurally compromised.

Economists warn that the accelerated deregulation that could follow would have particularly devastating effects on the middle and working classes: rising prices in sectors with little competition, unpunished abusive financial practices, and mergers of economic giants that crush smaller players. The June 29 decision is not an abstract matter—it affects the daily economic lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Financial Markets: Between Euphoria and Nervousness

On Wall Street, reactions were mixed. The assurance that the Federal Reserve remains protected averted an acute crisis of confidence in the bond markets. But uncertainty surrounding financial regulatory agencies such as the SEC created volatility in the banking and technology sectors. Institutional investors know that regulators under direct political control can cause just as much instability as overly strict regulators.

The U.S. dollar dipped slightly in the first few hours following the decision, before rebounding once it was confirmed that the Fed was unaffected. In the foreign exchange markets, the stability of the U.S. central bank remains the determining factor. But in the long term, a United States whose regulatory agencies are politically exploited sends a worrying signal to trading partners and foreign investors.

The markets were relieved that the Fed was spared, and I understand why. But the real issue isn’t financial—it’s moral. How many institutions can be weakened before the entire system loses its legitimacy? There is a threshold beyond which even Wall Street can no longer compensate for institutional erosion.

Europe is watching the U.S.'s drift with concern

Brussels and European capitals on high alert

In Europe, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision was met with palpable concern. For Brussels, a U.S. partner whose regulatory agencies are under the direct political control of the presidency is an unpredictable partner—on issues such as digital competition, data protection, and antitrust rules, the already significant differences are likely to worsen if the FTC and the SEC become instruments of Trump’s trade policy.

European diplomats quoted by Le Monde have expressed particular concerns about the future of transatlantic regulatory cooperation. If the FTC is used to favor American GAFA companies at the expense of European competition rules, trade tensions between the two blocs could reach unprecedented levels, going even beyond tariff wars.

A Signal to Authoritarian Regimes Around the World

Beyond Europe, the decision sends a message to the entire world about the institutional trajectory of the United States. Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran are watching with interest as the world’s leading democracy dismantles its own safeguards. For autocrats, this is confirmation that even the most robust democracies can be transformed from within—not through a military coup, but through a series of carefully orchestrated judicial decisions.

This geopolitical interpretation is perhaps the most troubling of all. The West draws its strength not only from its military and economic power, but from its institutional legitimacy—the shared belief that the rules apply to everyone, even the most powerful. Every time this legitimacy erodes, the entire Western camp is weakened in the face of its adversaries.

I am pro-Western at heart. I believe that the West still represents the best model of political organization ever devised. That is precisely why it pains me to see Washington tearing itself down while Beijing and Moscow look on with satisfaction.

The Doctrine of the Unitary Executive: Origins and Dangers

A theory forged in Republican circles during the Reagan years

The doctrine of the unitary executive did not originate with Trump. It was conceptualized and promoted by conservative legal scholars beginning in the 1980s—particularly within the Federalist Society—as a response to the expansion of the administrative state under the New Deal and the Great Society. The central argument: all executive power constitutionally belongs to the president, and independent agencies constitute an illegal distortion of this structure.

Generations of conservative legal scholars, law professors, and activists have worked for forty years to bring this doctrine before the Supreme Court. Trump’s appointment of three justices during his first term—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—finally created the majority needed to bring this long-term project to fruition.

The Systemic Risks of an Omnipotent Presidency

A president capable of controlling all federal regulatory agencies becomes, in practice, a dominant economic player. He can steer antitrust investigations in favor of his allies and against his opponents. He can paralyze environmental, financial, or health oversight in sectors he wishes to deregulate. He can use the FTC to threaten media outlets whose coverage he dislikes.

These risks are not theoretical: they have already been observed in democracies that have gone through phases of strong presidentialism, from Orbán’s Hungary to Erdoğan’s Turkey. Each time, the scenario is similar: one institution after another falls under the control of the ruling party, and the democratic recovery becomes exponentially more difficult with each step taken.

I want to be honest: I don’t know if Trump will use these new powers as aggressively as his critics fear. But in a democracy, the question isn’t “Will this leader abuse them?” The question is “Will the next one?” And on that point, the answer doesn’t reassure me.

The Challenges Facing Congress in the Face of a Strengthened Executive Branch

Can Congress pass legislation to counter the decision?

Several constitutional scholars suggest that Congress could attempt to counter the Supreme Court’s decision through legislation creating new statutory protections for agency commissioners—by anchoring them not in ordinary laws but in quasi-constitutional structures that are more resistant to presidential attacks. But the political feasibility of such measures in a Republican-controlled Congress is close to zero in the short term.

The paradox is stark: the only branch capable of counterbalancing a strengthened executive branch is precisely the legislative branch, but it is currently controlled by the same political party that supported and celebrated the Court’s decision. The institutional seesaw that should restore balance to the system is stuck at the same angle.

The November 2026 Midterms as a Test of Democracy

The midterm elections on November 3, 2026, represent the next test of American democratic resilience. If the Democrats regain a majority in the House or the Senate, they will theoretically have the legislative tools to attempt to counterbalance the SCOTUS decision with new legislation. But the window of opportunity is narrow, and the Supreme Court’s precedents on interpreting laws protecting government agencies are not encouraging.

In the meantime, each passing day solidifies the new constitutional reality. Agencies that once operated independently will adjust their behavior, anticipating the executive branch’s wishes to avoid conflict. It is often this mechanism of institutional self-censorship—rather than the firings themselves—that has the most lasting effects on how institutions function.

The November 2026 midterms may be America’s last chance to choose a different direction before the institutional damage becomes irreversible. This is no ordinary election. It is a referendum on American democracy itself. I hope voters understand this.

International Comparisons: When Other Democracies Lost Their Safeguards

The Bitter Lessons of Hungary and Poland

Europe has seen this movie before. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán methodically brought independent institutions—the competition authority, media regulatory agencies, and the central bank—under political control between 2010 and 2014. The result: a democracy that retained the formal trappings of pluralism while hollowing out its institutions. In Poland, the PiS’s similar attempt to overhaul the judiciary triggered a deep political crisis that lasted until 2023.

The difference with the United States lies in scale and global reach. What Trump is doing in Washington does not merely affect the 330 million Americans—it redefines the rules of the game for all Western democracies that look to the United States as a model and guarantor of the liberal international order.

The Israeli Example and the Lessons of a Controversial Judicial Reform

In Israel, the Netanyahu government’s attempt in 2023 to reform the judicial system to curtail the Supreme Court’s power triggered months of massive protests, paralyzed part of the reserve army, and caused an acute economic crisis. The country backed down—temporarily. This experience shows that organized civil societies can resist such abuses—but at the cost of considerable effort and sustained mobilization.

American civil society—with its organizations, universities, labor unions, independent media, lawyers, and district judges—represents a considerable force of institutional resistance. The real question is whether this resistance will be sufficiently coordinated and sustained to counterbalance an executive branch whose powers have just been constitutionally expanded.

I look at what’s happening in America and think of the Poles, the Hungarians, and the Israelis who had to take to the streets to defend their institutions. Democracy isn’t defended solely at the ballot box. It’s defended every day, in every courtroom, in every newsroom, at every protest. It’s exhausting. And yet, it’s the only way.

The Future of the Agencies: Purge, Neutralization, or Resistance?

Three Possible Scenarios for the Coming Months

Analysts foresee three distinct scenarios for federal agencies in the months following the SCOTUS decision. The first is an active purge: Trump immediately replaces all Democratic commissioners with loyalists, restructuring the agencies’ mandates in line with his deregulatory agenda. This scenario is the most likely in the short term for the FTC and the CFPB.

The second scenario is gradual neutralization: new appointments progressively transform the agencies into passive entities that launch fewer investigations, impose fewer penalties, and allow the market to regulate itself. This scenario is more insidious because it receives less media attention, but it is potentially more enduring. The third scenario—internal resistance from career civil servants—remains possible but has been weakened by the court ruling that removes statutory protections.

Career Civil Servants: Between Duty and Vulnerability

Thousands of federal civil servants within these agencies find themselves in a precarious position. Their professional mission requires them to enforce regulatory laws regardless of political pressure. But their legal status has just lost some of its protections. The fear of dismissal should not be underestimated as a factor in changing institutional behavior.

Some civil servants will choose to resist—by carefully documenting political pressures, alerting the appropriate whistleblowers, and maintaining the rigor of their procedures. Others will adapt. It is in this silent standoff, invisible to the media, that much of the fate of these institutions for the coming years will be decided.

These anonymous civil servants who continue their work despite political pressure deserve to be called heroes. Not media heroes with op-eds in major newspapers—but quiet heroes who do their jobs properly because it is the right thing to do. They are, ultimately, the ones who keep the rule of law alive.

Legal Implications: The Expected Wave of Lawsuits

Hundreds of Cases to Be Reexamined

The SCOTUS decision of June 29, 2026, will trigger an avalanche of litigation in the lower federal courts. Dozens of cases in which agency commissioners acted based on protections that the Court has just invalidated will be challenged. FTC antitrust decisions, SEC sanctions, and NLRB union protections could be retroactively challenged.

Law firms specializing in administrative law are bracing for years of intense litigation. Every major company that has lost a regulatory battle before an independent agency in recent years will examine whether the new doctrine offers avenues for redress. The economic cost of this legal uncertainty will be considerable, regardless of the final outcomes.

The Supreme Court Faces Its Own Contradictions

The Supreme Court itself will have to grapple with the contradictions created by its two simultaneous decisions on June 29. How can it uphold the Fed exception while applying the general rule of the unitary executive? The financial “systemic importance” test used to protect the central bank is vague enough to be challenged in dozens of other contexts. District court judges will grapple with what exactly “too systemic to be subject to dismissal” means.

The Roberts Court has established a clear doctrine in its main component but a vague exception in its secondary component. This structural ambiguity ensures that it will have to revisit these issues in the coming years, likely through new rulings that will clarify or refine the scope of the June 29, 2026, decision.

U.S. constitutional law is currently experiencing its most tumultuous period since the New Deal battles of the 1930s. And just as in the 1930s, the outcome will depend in part on who appoints the next justices. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices, however, remain in office for decades. Perhaps that is the crux of the matter.

The Message Sent to the World: Washington Is Reinventing Itself Under Conservative Pressure

NATO Allies: Between Mistrust and Adaptation

NATO allies who rely on U.S. institutional stability as a guarantee of world order view the decision of June 29, 2026, with deep ambivalence. On the one hand, the United States remains the indispensable military and economic power they cannot do without. On the other hand, a United States whose regulatory institutions are being exploited for political ends is a less predictable partner in terms of its commercial, financial, and diplomatic commitments.

Capitals such as Berlin, Paris, Ottawa, and Tokyo have been paying close attention to the SCOTUS decision. For these partners, the issue is not doctrinal—it is pragmatic: if the U.S. FTC becomes a tool of trade policy under direct presidential control, bilateral trade and regulatory negotiations will become infinitely more complex. Every agreement must now factor in the risk that the U.S. regulatory framework could change radically from one presidency to the next.

The West cannot afford a weakened America

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea pose combined threats that demand a coherent and sustained Western response. This coherence requires an America with credible and stable institutions. Every weakening of the U.S. institutional architecture is a strategic gift to the West’s adversaries, who have for years been betting on the erosion of liberal democracy from within.

This is not an emotional argument—it is a cold geopolitical calculation. Beijing is watching for every crack in the Western bloc. Moscow exploits every narrative of American dysfunction to weaken transatlantic solidarity. Providing these adversaries with new informational ammunition by weakening independent U.S. agencies is a luxury the West simply cannot afford in this geostrategic context.

Let our European allies understand this clearly: what is happening in Washington is not an internal American problem. It is a Western problem. And every democracy in the Atlantic Alliance has a vital interest in ensuring that the United States remains institutionally sound. Saying this is not interference—it is solidarity.

Conclusion: A landmark decision—for better or for worse

June 29, 2026, in the history books

A hundred years from now, historians of American law will identify June 29, 2026, as a major turning point. Whether this date is cited as the moment the United States restored its original constitutional order or as the moment it began dismantling its democratic safeguards will depend entirely on what future generations make of this new legal framework. What is certain is that nothing will ever be the same again in the relationship between the federal executive branch and independent agencies.

The West needs a strong and institutionally sound America. European democracies, Asian allies, and partners around the world are watching Washington with growing concern. Not because they want a weak America—they need a strong America—but because they know, as I do, that a democracy whose institutions are stripped of their independence is no longer truly a democracy. It is a nominal democracy. And nominal democracies do not last.

Resistance as the Only Reasonable Path Forward

Despite everything, institutional, judicial, and civic resistance remains the only viable response. The 43 states that have their own regulatory agencies, state bar associations, nongovernmental organizations, whistleblowers, and investigative journalists—all are now on the front lines to document and challenge the abuses that could result from this decision. This is not a lost war. It is a war that is more difficult than anticipated.

And if the November 2026 midterms result in a change in the majority in Congress, the U.S. legislature could regain the tools to partially restore the balance that has just been upset. This hope is not naive—it is grounded in the constitutional mechanisms that, despite everything, continue to function. But American citizens will have to collectively decide that they want to use them.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist