What Supreme Court Oral Arguments Could Mean for FERC Independence
The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 8, 2025, heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that could significantly narrow longstanding protections for members of independent agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
Several justices appeared ready to limit or overrule a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), which has historically limited the president from removing commissioners of multimember independent agencies without cause. FERC commissioners serve staggered five-year terms, with no more than three coming from one political party, and commissioners have an equal vote on regulatory matters. A ruling against Humphrey's Executor could allow the president to remove FERC commissioners at will, replacing them with appointees more directly aligned with the administration's priorities.
Key Takeaways and Implications
It is often noted that FERC independence, anchored by its technical and engineering expertise, insulates FERC decisions from political pressure. In contrast, removing "for cause" protections may potentially place FERC commissioners under closer presidential control. This shift may introduce regulatory uncertainty with each new administration, whereas FERC traditionally has provided long-term stability. That includes, for example, decisions on energy infrastructure, natural gas and liquified natural gas (LNG) projects, wholesale markets, transmission tariffs and rulemakings.
A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the government could also have implications that extend beyond FERC to similar agencies. Ultimately, the outcome of this case could reshape the administrative state and how industry engages with independent regulatory commissions.
A decision is expected by July 2026.
Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.