While the Supreme Court's June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter attracted significant attention for overruling Humphrey's Executor, the more important question for employers is what happens next. The decision is already reshaping litigation over presidential removal authority and could accelerate changes in the leadership of federal agencies that regulate the workplace, including the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Background
In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6–3 majority held that the President may remove members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at will. In reaching this decision, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that previously shielded the leaders of “independent” agencies from being fired without cause. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the FTC’s for-cause protection could not be squared with the Constitution’s separation of powers, and that Humphrey’s “has not withstood the test of time.” The majority concluded that today's FTC plainly exercises executive power by enforcing and administering numerous statutes that affect nearly every corner of the economy. Thus, the majority held that the FTC cannot be insulated from presidential control. The same logic, as explained below, applies to other agencies that wield comparable authority.
However, the Court did not address protections for judges on non-Article III bodies such as the U.S. Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims. Additionally, in a companion decision issued the same day, the Court declined to permit the removal of a Federal Reserve Governor, signaling that the Fed occupies a constitutionally distinct position tied to its unique historical role over monetary policy. The Court emphasized the Federal Reserve's unique constitutional and historical role in monetary policy, suggesting that its holding should not automatically be extended to every multi-member federal body. See Trump v. Cook (2026).
Impact on the NLRB and EEOC
The Court's decision is already affecting litigation involving other federal agencies. The Supreme Court declined to review a D.C. Circuit decision upholding the President's removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris, leaving in place a decision that applied reasoning consistent with Slaughter. Similar questions remain pending or are expected to arise with respect to other agencies, including the NLRB. Former Board Member Gwynne Wilcox’s challenge to her removal was combined that of MSPB Member Harris in the D.C. Circuit Court decision, and while the Supreme Court has not ruled yet on Wilcox’s petition for certiorari, it will likely be denied as well if she does not withdraw it.
The EEOC presents a somewhat different legal question because Title VII does not expressly limit the President's removal authority. Instead, Commissioners serve fixed terms without an explicit statutory for-cause removal provision. Thus, the President’s authority to remove Commissioners was already on firmer footing even before Slaughter. In early 2025, the administration removed two Commissioners, and former Commission Samuels sued, although this lawsuit was stayed in October 2025 pending the outcome of Slaughter. On July 6, 2026, Samuels voluntarily dismissed her claims against all defendants.
Practical Impact for Employers
For employers, Slaughter is significant because it is likely to make changes in federal workplace enforcement policy occur more quickly following presidential transitions. Agencies that exercise executive authority may experience more rapid leadership changes, which could result in faster shifts in enforcement priorities, litigation strategy, policy guidance, and adjudicative positions.
At the same time, employers should remember that changes in agency leadership do not automatically change the law. Federal statutes, existing regulations, and binding court decisions generally remain in effect unless they are amended or overturned through the appropriate legal process.
Employers should continue to base workplace policies on applicable statutes, regulations, and controlling judicial precedent while recognizing that agency guidance and enforcement priorities may become increasingly subject to change. Regular review of employment policies and consultation with counsel before making significant compliance changes will become even more important as the federal regulatory landscape evolves.
If you have any questions regarding this Alert, please contact the author, Joe Harris, Partner in our Tampa and New York City offices at jhharris@fordharrison.com. Of course, you can also contact the FordHarrison attorney with whom you usually work.