President Trump’s bold move to challenge longstanding bureaucratic independence could reshape the federal government in favor of executive control. The Supreme Court is now poised to overturn a 90-year-old precedent that has protected agency heads from presidential removal, expanding Trump’s authority to drain the swamp and reshape independent agencies according to his America First agenda.
Trump Takes On Entrenched Bureaucracy
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to grant the president expanded power to remove independent regulators who oppose administration policies. This challenge involves explicitly Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy A. Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board, both of whom were reinstated by lower courts after being removed by President Trump.
A legal battle with nationwide implications is gaining momentum.
USA TODAY recently published a story in 77 newspapers across the country exploring how the firing of independent federal agency leaders could set the stage for a major Supreme Court case.
At the center is… pic.twitter.com/CIil2HbQyg
— Durée & Company (@dureecopr) April 17, 2025
President Trump’s legal team argues that forcing a president to delegate executive power to agency heads who actively work against administration objectives undermines constitutional authority. Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized this position, stating, “This situation is untenable. The President should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the Administration’s policy objectives for a single day, much less for months.”
Constitutional Authority At Stake
At the center of this legal battle is the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., which allowed Congress to create job protections for leaders of independent agencies. The Trump administration contends these protections unconstitutionally encroach on presidential powers expressly granted in the Constitution.
The Major Separation of Powers Problems with J.E.B. v. Trump. Judge Boasberg is about to unleash a truly independent counsel on the Trump Administration, and the President himself, subject to none of the strictures that Alexia Morrison faced. https://t.co/I5RR2IoEjt
— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) April 18, 2025
If successful, Trump’s challenge would shift significant power back to the White House, potentially affecting key agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. This change would enable the replacement of bureaucrats with business-friendly figures who would reduce unnecessary regulations that have stifled American economic growth.
Conservative Court Signals Support
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has previously shown a willingness to expand presidential authority and limit bureaucratic independence. In 2020, the Court found the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional due to its single director’s excessive power, insulated from presidential control.
“It would be a real earthquake in terms of the way our government operates. All these agencies that people may not think about have a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.”
The unified executive theory, long championed by conservative legal scholars, maintains that the president should control all executive branch actions as the Constitution’s sole holder of executive power. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan has objected to this interpretation, defending the current system that allows administrative agencies to maintain independence from direct presidential control.
Trump’s legal challenge represents a fundamental attempt to restore constitutional balance by reclaiming presidential authority from unelected bureaucrats. The current Supreme Court, with its respect for originalist constitutional interpretation, appears receptive to arguments that would strengthen presidential control over the administrative state and return power to elected officials accountable to the American people.
Sources: