What the Trump v. Slaughter Decision Means for Independent Agency-Regulated Companies

For more than 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) insulated members of independent agencies, most prominently the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), from at‑will presidential removal, permitting termination only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance." That framework gave businesses a crucial assumption that regulatory priorities at independent agencies would remain relatively stable regardless of which party controlled the White House. However, on June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court threatened that assumption in Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), eliminating for-cause removal protections for commissioners at the FTC, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other independent agencies.

The ruling represents a decisive victory for proponents of the "unitary executive" theory – the principle that the U.S. Constitution rests the entirety of the executive power of the country in the president, which provides that the president has complete control over the agencies that make up the executive branch of government. For regulated businesses, the practical consequence is immediate: Agency leaders now serve at the president's discretion, and enforcement priorities can shift based on the direction and priorities of the White House.

The Court's Decision: Removing the Independency of Federal Agencies

The facts are straightforward and underscore how directly this decision empowers future administrations. President Donald Trump removed former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March 2025, stating only that her service was "inconsistent" with administration policies, without citing any statutory basis such as inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance. 15 U.S.C. § 41. Slaughter sued, and the district court ordered her reinstated under Humphrey's Executor. The Supreme Court reversed.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the U.S. Constitution vests the entirety of executive power in the president alone and that the ability to remove principal officers at will is "essential" to that authority. The for-cause removal protections in the FTC Act and similar statutes, the Court concluded, impermissibly shield officers exercising broad enforcement, litigation and policymaking functions from presidential supervision. As the Chief Justice framed it: "[T]o remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the President." In other words, the Court has declared that independent agencies were never constitutionally independent at all.

Justice Neil Gorsuch's concurrence warrants particular attention from general counsels. He cautioned that because Humphrey's Executor allowed the U.S. Congress to insulate agencies from presidential control, Congress responded by delegating "vast legislative and judicial powers" to those agencies. Now that presidential control has been restored, Justice Gorsuch urged the Court to "finish the journey" by returning those legislative and judicial powers to Congress and the courts. This signals that structural challenges to agency rulemaking and adjudicatory authority, including arguments that agencies have exceeded their constitutional mandate, will gain significant traction in the years ahead – an issue the Supreme Court addressed in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Ramimondo, the 2024 opinion that overturned the Chevron deference, which required courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent warned that the decision "reshapes our Government" by transforming "dozens of independent commissions" into "purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President's hands." Whether one agrees with the majority or dissent, the practical reality is undeniable: Federal agencies will answer to the policy and political priorities of the president.

What This Means in Practice: Agency-by-Agency Impact

The Trump v. Slaughter decision does not exist in isolation. Decided the same day, Trump v. Cook addressed the president's attempt to remove a Federal Reserve (Fed) governor, and the Court blocked that removal, preserving the Fed's unique independence. Together, these decisions create a new constitutional map: Most independent agencies have lost independence from the control of the White House, but the Fed, for now, retains its protected status. Below is an assessment of the practical impact across the agencies most relevant to clients.

Implications for Specific Independent Agencies

Please note that each impacted agency may now be subject to changes based on executive branch priorities and policies.

• FTC: At the center of the Trump v. Slaughter litigation, the FTC faces the most immediate impact. Antitrust enforcement priorities, consumer protection initiatives and merger review processes may shift significantly with changes in administration. Companies in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) transactions or facing FTC investigations should monitor leadership changes closely. The FTC is involved in every industry sector, including healthcare products and services, pharmaceutical companies and pharmacy-related businesses, and has a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
• NLRB: Labor relations policies, including union election procedures, joint employer standards and unfair labor practice enforcement, are now subject to more rapid shifts. Employers should anticipate that NLRB precedents may be reversed or modified more frequently as leadership changes.
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Though SEC commissioners have historically enjoyed some removal protections, the Trump v. Slaughter decision calls those protections into question. Public companies, investment advisers, broker-dealers and other SEC-regulated entities should prepare for potential shifts in enforcement priorities, disclosure requirements and rulemaking agendas.
• FCC: Telecommunications, media and technology companies regulated by the FCC should expect that spectrum allocation, net neutrality, content moderation oversight and broadband policies may be subject to more significant swings between administrations.
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Energy sector participants, including utilities, pipeline operators and power generators, should anticipate that infrastructure permitting, rate-setting and energy market oversight could be influenced more directly by executive branch policy priorities.
• EEOC: Employers should expect that workplace discrimination enforcement priorities, guidance on emerging issues and litigation strategies may shift more rapidly with administration changes.
• CPSC: Product manufacturers and retailers should monitor for changes in safety standards, recall procedures and enforcement priorities that may accompany leadership transitions.
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC): Nuclear facility operators and licensees should be aware that safety oversight, licensing decisions and decommissioning policies could be affected by changes in NRC leadership in alignment with administration priorities.
• Fed Carve-Out – The Notable Exception: In the companion case Trump v. Cook, decided the same day, the Court declined to extend Trump v. Slaughter to the Fed, recognizing the Fed's "unique" statutory framework and distinct role in monetary policy as providing constitutionally sufficient grounds for continued removal protections, at least for now. Financial institutions, banks and investment firms should understand that Fed independence is preserved but potentially vulnerable to future litigation. The boundaries of this carve-out remain untested.

Direct Presidential Authority Over Independent Agencies

Regulated businesses must now understand that industry oversight may change based on the priorities and policies of the president. Divergence or resistance from White House priorities can result in immediate removal. For businesses, this means that the regulatory posture of an agency can change not just with a new administration, but even midterm, whenever a president decides to replace commissioners who are not aligned with current policy objectives.

End of Bipartisan Balance

Congress designed independent agencies with staggered terms and bipartisan composition requirements to ensure continuity and insulation from short-term political pressure. Presidents may now remove and replace commissioners at will. The result: A single election or presidential decision can produce a complete reversal in an agency's enforcement philosophy.

Agencies as Political Actors

Independent agencies will increasingly be perceived and function as extensions of the sitting president's policy agenda rather than acting as independent insulated regulators.

Strategic Implications for In-House Legal Teams

The Supreme Court's opinion in Trump v. Slaughter will likely bring changes to how federal agencies conduct their regulatory and enforcement functions. General counsels and chief compliance officers should expect the following:

• More Pronounced Policy Swings. With agency leadership now subject to at-will removal, businesses should expect more dramatic and rapid shifts in regulatory enforcement priorities, rulemaking agendas, and interpretive positions between and even within administrations. General counsels should build regulatory agility into their compliance frameworks, with scenario planning for multiple potential enforcement postures.
• Reduced Predictability in Capital Allocation. Long-term investment decisions, M&A planning and strategic business judgments must now account for the possibility that the regulatory framework could change significantly with each presidential transition or midterm election.
• Impact on Pending Matters. Companies with pending enforcement actions, investigations or rulemakings before independent agencies should be aware that leadership changes could affect the disposition of those matters. A change in commission composition may lead to shifts in settlement posture, enforcement theories or rulemaking priorities.
• New Constitutional Defense Tools. Justice Gorsuch's concurrence is not merely academic; it is a road map for future litigation. Companies facing agency enforcement now have stronger arguments that agencies are exercising powers beyond their constitutional mandate. These structural challenges, building on West Virginia v. EPA and Loper Bright, and now Trump v. Slaughter, represent an increasingly viable defense strategy.
• Litigation and Settlement Strategy Recalibration. Entities engaged in proceedings before independent agencies should immediately evaluate whether current leadership's enforcement posture is likely to survive the next transition or even the next few months. In some cases, delay may be strategic if a more favorable commission is anticipated. In others, settlement now may be advisable before an emboldened agency under new leadership escalates enforcement.

Immediate Action Items

Holland & Knight's cross-disciplinary regulatory team recommends that general counsels and compliance leaders take the following steps now:

• Assess Regulatory Exposure. Identify all matters pending before independent agencies and evaluate whether leadership changes could affect their trajectory.
• Monitor Agency Leadership. Track nominations, confirmations and removals at key agencies. Rapid changes in commission makeup may signal shifts in enforcement or rulemaking.
• Stress-Test Compliance Programs. Review governance and compliance programs against a range of regulatory scenarios, not just current enforcement priorities. Programs built on assumptions of regulatory continuity may require review and potential recalibration. Consider tabletop exercises that simulate a 180-degree shift in agency enforcement posture.
• Evaluate Rulemaking Participation. Consider whether to engage more actively in agency rulemakings that could be vulnerable to reversal or modification under future leadership. Comments and administrative records built during one administration may provide the basis for challenges during the next.
• Evaluate Constitutional Defense Strategies. For companies facing enforcement actions or investigations, assess whether structural challenges to agency authority are now viable. The Trump v. Slaughter decision, Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, and the Court's recent decisions in Loper Bright and West Virginia v. EPA collectively provide multiple avenues to challenge the constitutional basis of agency action.
• Plan for Political Transition Periods. Develop strategies for managing regulatory risk during presidential transitions, when removals, appointments and policy directives may occur rapidly.
• Engage Experienced Regulatory Counsel. The intersection of constitutional law, administrative procedure and industry-specific regulation requires counsel who can navigate all three dimensions simultaneously. Holland & Knight's team combines deep regulatory experience with constitutional litigation capability, a combination that this new landscape demands.

Looking Ahead: The Regulatory Landscape Has Permanently Shifted

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter is not merely a constitutional law development; it is a structural change to how federal agencies operate.

As Holland & Knight foretold in a September 2025 alert, overturning Humphrey's Executor would give presidents "much more authority over independent agencies, with both legal and political consequence." That prediction has now come to pass. Companies that act now to reassess their regulatory exposure, recalibrate their compliance frameworks and develop proactive engagement strategies will be best positioned to navigate this transformed landscape.

Holland & Knight's regulatory, litigation and government affairs teams are prepared to help you assess your specific situation and develop a tailored strategy. Reach out to any of the authors to discuss how this decision affects your organization.

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.