If the justices expand presidential power, how can they spare the Fed?

The Supreme Court may soon revisit a foundational question about the structure of the federal government: how much control the president has over so-called independent agencies.

At issue is the scope of the court’s longstanding precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which upheld limits on presidents’ ability to remove officials from certain regulatory bodies without cause. That framework now faces renewed pressure. In Trump v. Slaughter, a pending case arising from the removal of a Democratic commissioner from the Federal Trade Commission, the court is being asked to reconsider how far those limits extend.

For nearly a century, Humphrey’s Executor has anchored the modern administrative state, insulating agencies like the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Communications Commission from direct political control.

But that framework now appears increasingly unstable. A conservative majority on the court has signaled openness to expanding presidential removal power, potentially allowing a president to dismiss agency heads at will. Proponents argue that such a shift would restore democratic accountability to a bureaucracy that has grown distant from electoral checks. Critics warn it would erode the independence that allows regulators to operate free from political pressure.

Both sides are engaging a real constitutional question. But there is a deeper problem the court will have to confront if it moves in this direction.

Would that principle apply equally to all independent institutions?

Consider the Federal Reserve.........

© The Hill