The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter may significantly reshape how independent federal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), operate.
Although the case arose from President Donald Trump’s removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the Court used the dispute to overrule Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that had long permitted Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from presidential removal except for cause. The Court instead held that, as a general rule, principal officers exercising executive power must remain removable by the President, substantially expanding presidential authority over agencies historically viewed as independent.
The decision’s significance extends well beyond the FTC. Readers of Employment Law Worldview may recall that we have closely followed the litigation surrounding former National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox because it presented the same fundamental constitutional question: whether Congress may insulate members of independent agencies from presidential removal through statutory “for-cause” protections. We’ve reported on that litigation from President Trump’s removal of Wilcox in January 2025 (see here), to her reinstatement by the district court (see here), to the Supreme Court’s stay of that order (see here) and most recently to the Board’s eventual return to a quorum following the White House’s nominations (see here and here).
Until now, however, the Supreme Court had never squarely answered the underlying constitutional question. Trump v. Slaughter appears to do exactly that.
The district court’s decision reinstating Wilcox relied heavily on Humphrey’s Executor and the proposition that Congress could protect certain agency officials from removal except for cause. With that precedent now expressly overruled, the legal foundation supporting Wilcox’s reinstatement—and similar challenges involving other independent agencies, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)—has largely disappeared. Although the Supreme Court will still need to formally dispose of the Wilcox case, the outcome now appears considerably more predictable.
As our recent coverage demonstrates, agency leadership can have a significant impact on the pace and direction of federal labor and employment enforcement. Trump v. Slaughter may accelerate those shifts by allowing incoming administrations to replace agency leadership more quickly than under the prior framework. For employers, this means that changes in Board composition, enforcement priorities, rulemaking and litigation positions may occur much earlier in a presidential administration than they have historically. We will continue to monitor the impact of Trump v. Slaughter and its implications for employers as the remaining litigation unfolds.