The Supreme Court’s conservative majority sent shockwaves through Washington on Monday, signaling that President Donald Trump may soon win a major victory in his effort to restore constitutional authority to the Oval Office.
In a case watched closely by legal scholars and everyday Americans alike, the Court appeared ready to allow Trump to remove a Federal Trade Commission member without cause—a decision that could finally unravel nearly 90 years of bureaucratic insulation.
This ruling has the potential to reshape federal power, rein in unaccountable agencies, and return decision-making to the president voters actually elect.
A Case That Could Rewrite Presidential Power
At the center of the hearing is Trump’s removal of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner dismissed before her term expired. Slaughter sued immediately, citing Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that gave Congress the ability to shield certain regulators from presidential oversight.
But during nearly three hours of arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices repeatedly questioned whether Washington’s sprawling agencies should still enjoy protections created nearly a century ago—long before today’s massive regulatory state existed.
For many Americans, especially older voters who’ve watched Washington grow uncontrollably for decades, this case represents an overdue rebalancing of power.
Conservative Justices Challenge Outdated Bureaucratic Shields
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the FTC of 1935 had “very little executive power,” making early protections nearly obsolete today. Modern agencies hold enormous influence over businesses, consumers, workers, and entire industries.
Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett pressed the same point, suggesting the Court may need to significantly narrow or even undo Humphrey’s Executor to restore constitutional clarity.
The Court’s conservative majority consistently returned to a clear principle: the president cannot be held hostage by unelected regulators shielded from accountability.
Trump Administration Argues for Restoring the Constitution’s Design
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer delivered a strong defense of executive authority, calling the 1935 precedent an “indefensible outlier” that no longer fits modern government.
Sauer argued that today’s agencies—armed with broad enforcement powers and regulatory reach—must answer to the president, not operate as rogue entities protected by outdated court rulings.
For conservatives, this argument resonates deeply: Washington has become too large, too political, and too detached from the voters it is supposed to serve.
Liberal Justices Issue Dire Warnings
Liberal members of the Court pushed back sharply, claiming that removing these protections could lead to a president firing thousands of civil servants.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the administration of attempting to “destroy the structure of government,” a remark conservatives nationwide immediately saw as exaggerated fear-mongering designed to protect the administrative state.
Justice Elena Kagan warned about a “slippery slope,” though she offered no alternative that preserved both accountability and efficiency.
Their concerns highlight the deep ideological divide between those who want a smaller, more responsive federal government—and those who prefer to keep unelected regulators shielded from presidential oversight.
Why This Case Matters for America’s Future
Trump v. Slaughter is more than a legal battle; it is a historic test of whether the president can truly manage the federal agencies that shape everything from energy policy to healthcare rules.
A lower court had ruled in Slaughter’s favor, ordering her reinstated. But the Supreme Court paused that ruling, allowing Trump’s decision to stand—an early sign that the majority sees significant constitutional problems with the old precedent.
If the Court overturns or significantly limits Humphrey’s Executor, presidents will finally be able to remove powerful regulators who ignore their directives and pursue their own political agendas.
For older Americans who have watched federal agencies grow beyond control, this case may mark a long-awaited return to common sense.
More Cases Are Coming—and the Stakes Are Enormous
This is just one of several high-impact cases the Court’s conservative majority will hear this year involving presidential power and the reach of federal agencies. Another major case—Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook—will be heard next month.
The Court will also review lawsuits involving Trump’s removal of Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
All of these cases share a central theme: restoring accountability to a federal government that has grown far too powerful and far too distant from the American people.
A Decision Expected by June
The Supreme Court’s final ruling is expected by the end of June, and it could redefine the balance of power in Washington for decades. A win for Trump would not only validate his constitutional authority—it would also reaffirm the belief held by millions of conservatives that the federal bureaucracy must answer to the president, not the other way around.
If the Court sides with the conservative majority’s reasoning, it may usher in a new era of accountability, transparency, and constitutional governance.
