Supreme Court justices overturned a 90-year-old precedent, granting presidents unprecedented authority to remove officials from independent agencies without cause. The 6-3 ruling in *Trump v. Slaughter* rejected the 1935 *Humphrey's Executor* decision, which had protected FTC commissioners from arbitrary firings. Now, agencies like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and National Labor Relations Board face similar risks. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a rare dissent, warned the move would “reshape our Government,” concentrating power in the executive branch.

The decision hinges on the court’s interpretation of executive control. Chief Justice Roberts argued that officials exercising presidential authority must remain accountable to him. Critics, including Justices Kagan and Jackson, countered that Congress intended these agencies to act independently, shielding them from political whims. The ruling directly impacts over 25 multi-member agencies, many established under New Deal-era protections. For instance, FTC members previously required congressional approval for removal except in cases of inefficiency or misconduct—a standard now eliminated.

This shift carries significant business implications. Companies relying on agency stability—like those regulated by the FTC or NLRB—may face inconsistent enforcement or politicized decisions. The ruling also sets a precedent for future disputes, potentially emboldening presidents to reshape agencies to align with their agendas. While the court avoided addressing the Federal Reserve’s unique structure, lower courts may extend this logic to other bodies. Sotomayor’s dissent underscores the tension between judicial restraint and executive overreach, leaving lasting uncertainty for institutional autonomy.