President Donald Trump might just get the green light to clean house at independent federal agencies with the Supreme Court’s blessing.

The nation’s highest court signaled this week a readiness to bolster presidential power by potentially overturning a decades-old precedent that has long restricted a president’s ability to dismiss agency board members without cause, Newsmax reported. 

This isn’t just a legal footnote; it’s a seismic shift in how Washington operates, and conservatives are cheering the prospect of reining in unelected bureaucrats who often push progressive agendas unchecked.

Revisiting a 1935 Legal Precedent

Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor upheld a law that limited presidential firings of Federal Trade Commission members to cases of clear misconduct like inefficiency or neglect.

That unanimous decision came after President Franklin Roosevelt tried to oust FTC member William Humphrey, who refused to resign, leading to a lawsuit for back pay after Humphrey’s passing.

Fast forward to today, and that old ruling is looking mighty shaky, with the court’s conservative majority itching to either scrap it or water it down significantly.

Trump’s Bold Moves on Firings

Trump hasn’t been shy about wielding his removal power, having already fired Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter without cause, alongside board members from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Only two officials—Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Copyright Official Shira Perlmutter—have dodged the axe so far, though Trump is gunning for Cook over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud, which she firmly denies.

While the court seems poised to treat the Federal Reserve differently due to concerns over economic stability if central bank leaders can be easily dismissed, a separate argument in January will decide if Cook can keep her post during her legal challenge.

Conservative Justices Lead the Charge

The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices are showing strong support for Trump’s position, brushing aside objections from the three liberal justices and allowing removals like Slaughter’s to stand while lawsuits play out.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who’s been chipping away at laws curbing presidential firing powers since 2010, called the Humphreys Executor decision “a dry husk,” signaling just how little reverence remains for that old precedent.

Roberts has history on this, too—in 2020, he penned a ruling affirming Trump’s right to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite similar job protections, proving the president’s removal authority isn’t just a suggestion.

Balancing Power and Accountability

Now, let’s be fair—there’s a real debate here about checks and balances, and even some conservatives might worry about handing a president too much unchecked power to oust officials on a whim.

But as Roberts wrote in a 2024 immunity decision, the power to fire is among the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers that Congress can’t restrict, a stance that resonates with those of us tired of bloated bureaucracies dodging accountability.