Will the Supreme Court Overturn Humphrey’s Executor to Expand Presidential Power?
In a pivotal legal moment that could redefine the balance of power between the Executive and Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to revisit and potentially overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 landmark ruling that limited the president’s power to remove independent agency heads without cause. The Trump administration’s recent actions—particularly the firings of Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—have brought this decades-old doctrine under renewed scrutiny.
These terminations are not just about personnel changes—they’re about presidential authority and the independence of regulatory agencies that are meant to operate free from political interference.
What’s at Stake?
At the center of the dispute are two foundational questions:
- Does the president have unrestricted authority to remove agency heads at will?
- Can Congress legally shield independent agency officials from politically motivated firings by requiring cause-based removal?
Currently, federal law stipulates that members of the MSPB and NLRB can only be removed for specific causes such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” Trump’s actions, coupled with his administration’s legal arguments, directly challenge those protections.
A Precedent in Peril: Humphrey’s Executor (1935)
Humphrey’s Executor upheld congressional power to limit presidential removals when it comes to members of independent agencies. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled against FDR’s attempt to remove a Federal Trade Commission member for purely political reasons. The rationale: These agencies serve quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative roles, not purely executive ones, and thus deserve insulation from direct political control.
That ruling has been a cornerstone of administrative law for nearly 90 years. It has protected institutions like the Federal Reserve, SEC, FCC, and others from political purges, allowing for continuity and independence in government functions.
Enter: Trump’s Challenge
In February 2025, Trump fired Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, appointees from the Biden era, arguing they failed to align with his administration’s objectives. But federal courts disagreed. Judge Rudolph Contreras and Judge Beryl Howell ruled that both terminations violated federal law and constitutional precedent, ordering their reinstatement.
But the D.C. Circuit’s full court later lifted that reinstatement, and now the Supreme Court, through Chief Justice Roberts, has placed an administrative hold while the matter is fully reviewed—signaling its importance.
The administration, via Solicitor General D. John Sauer, is now asking the Court to directly reconsider Humphrey’s Executor or, at the very least, reinterpret its scope more narrowly.
The Bigger Constitutional Picture
The heart of the administration’s argument is this: The president, as head of the executive branch, must retain full control over those executing federal laws. According to Sauer, allowing agency heads to continue serving against the president’s will—even temporarily—undermines the unitary executive principle embedded in Article II of the Constitution.
But lower courts, and many scholars, argue that overturning Humphrey’s Executor would politicize independent agencies and destabilize critical government functions. Professor Stephen Vladeck, a leading expert on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket (aka “the shadow docket”), points out that while the current conservative majority has expanded presidential power in recent years, it has notably resisted overturning Humphrey’s Executor—perhaps due to concerns about institutions like the Federal Reserve.
Modern Erosion of the Doctrine
The Supreme Court hasn’t yet overturned Humphrey’s Executor, but it has chipped away at its protections. In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), the Court ruled that the president cannot be restricted in firing heads of single-director agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Yet it stopped short of applying that logic to multi-member independent boards.
This nuance may soon disappear if the Court decides to harmonize these rulings by doing away with Humphrey’s Executor entirely.
Why the Fed May Save the Precedent
The Federal Reserve—arguably the most powerful and sensitive of all independent agencies—looms large over this debate. Overturning Humphrey’s Executor could call into question the Fed’s insulation from political pressure. No justice, regardless of ideological leanings, appears eager to set off economic instability or undermine global confidence in the U.S. financial system.
This concern could act as a brake on the Court’s willingness to fully embrace the Trump administration’s request, even if a majority ideologically supports expanding executive power.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court may fast-track these cases for full briefing and argument, possibly before the end of the current term. Whether it merely narrows Humphrey’s Executor or topples it entirely could reshape the administrative state and presidential authority for generations.
Legal observers and scholars will be watching closely—not just for what the Court does, but how it justifies the outcome. For law students, practitioners, and constitutional law aficionados, this is a moment of seismic importance in the evolution of executive power.
#LegalNews #SupremeCourtWatch #PresidentialPower #HumphreysExecutor #ConstitutionalLaw #AdministrativeLaw #TrumpAdministration #SeparationOfPowers #NLRB #MSPB #UnitaryExecutive #SCOTUS #LegalBloggers
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment