Challenging Presidential Power

 

During oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter—a case that could redefine how much control presidents have over independent federal agencies—a tense exchange between Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Solicitor General D. John Sauer brought the Supreme Court chamber to a standstill. 

Sauer’s insistence that “the sky will not fall” if long-standing limits on presidential power are removed prompted Sotomayor to warn that his argument would effectively let the president “do more than the law permits.”

That moment shocked the room because it showed just how far the government’s position could go: it could take away important limits that keep presidents from fully controlling watchdog agencies, thereby shifting the balance of power between Congress and the executive. 

Why It Matters

In a case that could redefine the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, the Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the 90-year-old precedent insulating independent agency officials from at-will removal.

The sharp exchange between Sotomayor and Sauer—culminating in Sotomayor’s warning that the government’s position would let the president “do more than the law permits”—captured the stakes of Trump v. Slaughter, which could grant presidents sweeping new authority over federal regulators and reshape the structure of the administrative state.

What To Know: A Direct Challenge to a 90-Year Precedent

At the very heart of this matter is whether the Court should narrow or overturn Humphrey’s Executor (1935), the longstanding precedent that permits Congress to limit the president’s ability to remove commissioners of independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

President Donald Trump’s removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter—Trump v. Slaughter—without a statutory finding of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”—triggered the challenge now before the Court.

A Clash Over Presidential Power

The government’s position, advanced by Sauer, is that the Constitution vests full removal authority in the president and that Humphrey’s Executor should be discarded. That stance, aligned with the broader shift in the Justice Department’s arguments throughout 2025, has been reflected in litigation concerning the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and other agencies.

A Tense Exchange in the Courtroom

But at Monday’s argument, the debate crystallized in a direct confrontation over the consequences of abandoning limits on presidential control. Justice Sotomayor pressed Sauer on the structural implications of his argument. “You’re asking us to destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent,” she said.

Justice Samuel Alito invited Sauer to respond. Sauer offered reassurance: “The sky will not fall,” he said, adding, “The entire government will move toward accountability to the people.”

The exchange underscored the divide between justices who view removal protections as essential to preserving congressional design and those who see such limits as incompatible with Article II – which creates the presidency and gives the president the power to run the executive branch, while also setting limits and rules for how that power must be used.

As noted in the briefing for the petitioners, the government now argues that the president’s removal authority is “conclusive and preclusive,” a position that builds upon the Court’s recent decisions emphasizing executive control over administrative officers.

Sotomayor, however, focused on the breadth of the government’s position. She responded to Sauer’s explanation by stating, “What you’re saying is the president can do more than the law permits.” The room fell silent. Sauer, after a pause, hurriedly repeated a few of his earlier points and concluded that Humphrey should be reversed.

The moment captured a tension running through both argument and briefing. Petitioners contend that modern agencies such as the FTC exercise “considerable executive power,” rendering removal restrictions unconstitutional. Respondents counter that Humphrey’s Executor “controls this case,” emphasizing that the FTC continues to perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions that Congress intended to shield from direct political pressure.

The Stakes for the Administrative State

The Court’s resolution could have consequences far beyond the FTC. As reflected in related litigation—including challenges involving the NLRB and Merit Systems Protection Board—the Court has already allowed several removals to proceed while appeals were pending. Those interim rulings have been read, including by lower courts, as signaling skepticism toward the constitutionality of removal protections.

Still, Monday’s oral argument revealed that at least some justices remain concerned about the potential reach of the government’s theory. Justice Elena Kagan earlier noted that the Solicitor General’s argument rested on the premise that the Vesting Clause gives “all of the executive power to the president,” a proposition that, she suggested, raised questions about what limits, if any, would remain.

Whether the Court ultimately follows the path Sotomayor warned against—or embraces the broader presidential removal authority urged by Sauer—remains uncertain. But the brief moment of silence after Sotomayor’s final remark suggested the stakes were understood on all sides.

What People Are Saying

D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, at oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter: “Humphrey's must be overruled. It has become a decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, questioning Sauer at oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter: “Which other case has fundamentally altered the structure of government? For over a hundred years, actually, since 1887, we've had multi-member boards.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, describing Humphrey’s Executor in discussion of Trump v. Slaughter: “Humphrey's Executor is just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was...”

What Happens Next

The justices will now meet privately to take an initial vote, after which the senior justice in the majority will assign the opinion and the justices will begin drafting and revising their positions—a process that can take months, especially in a major separation-of-powers case. Only once the opinions are finalized will the Court publicly announce its decision, likely before the term ends in June 2026.

The ruling will immediately shape the president’s power to remove the heads of independent agencies, affect ongoing disputes involving bodies like the NLRB and MSPB, and prompt rapid adjustments within the executive branch and potentially in Congress, depending on how broadly the Court reshapes the balance of authority between the branches.

-Robert Alexander, Newsweek