Key Points
- The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 1930s-era precedent, ruling the president has broad authority to remove members of independent regulatory agencies like the FTC.
- Chief Justice John Roberts said Congress cannot restrict the president’s authority to remove executive officers, while the dissent warned the ruling significantly expands presidential power.
- The decision raises immediate questions about the future of FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, though removing her now would leave the FCC without a quorum.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dramatically expanded presidential authority over independent federal agencies, overturning a 91-year-old precedent and potentially reshaping the future of the Federal Communications Commission and other regulatory bodies.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that President Donald Trump acted within his constitutional authority when he removed Rebecca Slaughter, then head of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) overturning the longstanding decision in “Humphrey’s Executor v. United States” decision” that had limited a president’s ability to dismiss commissioners serving on independent agencies.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said officials who exercise executive authority remain accountable to the president and therefore must be subject to removal.
“Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote, concluding that the FTC’s statutory removal protections violate the constitutional separation of powers.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply dissented, writing that the Court had abandoned decades of constitutional precedent in favor of “unitary, total executive control.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a separate concurrence warning that Congress has delegated substantial legislative and judicial authority to independent agencies based on assumptions that no longer align with the Court’s ruling.
The Court carved out the Federal Reserve from its decision, noting the central bank’s unique historical and constitutional status.
The ruling has immediate implications beyond the FTC, particularly for the Federal Communications Commission, where Democratic Commissioner Anna Gomez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr and the commission’s recent actions involving broadcasters and media regulation.
Unlike the FTC, the Communications Act does not expressly provide for-cause removal protections for FCC commissioners, potentially leaving Gomez with even fewer legal protections than Slaughter possessed before Monday’s ruling. Gomez’s current term expires July 1, though she may continue serving until a successor is confirmed by the Senate.
Any attempt to remove Gomez immediately could create operational challenges for the FCC. The commission currently consists of Carr, Gomez and Commissioner Olivia Trusty. Removing Gomez would reduce the commission to two members, below the three-member quorum generally required to conduct official business, potentially delaying action on several high-profile proceedings, including broadcast license renewals involving Disney-owned ABC stations and media ownership matters
In a statement issued after the ruling, Gomez said the decision threatens Congress’s intent to establish independent regulatory agencies insulated from political influence.
“When commissioners can be removed for their policy views rather than for cause, the inevitable result is an agency that pulls its punches and defers to political winds rather than the record before it,” Gomez said.
More Stories
- Groups file formal petition to deny over FCC’s probes into Disney, ABC
- TV affiliate groups to FCC: Broadcasters face increased pressure from networks, streaming services
- FCC Commissioner Gomez criticizes agency’s approval of Nexstar-TEGNA deal
- FCC Commissioner: Agency gave preferential treatment to Sinclair, TEGNA ABC affiliates
- FOIA lawsuit seeks records on FCC Chairman Carr’s purported use of Signal
