In a major decision with sweeping implications for presidential authority, the US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 and said that President Donald Trump has the right to dismiss the leaders of two independent federal agencies, AFP reported. The court said the president can dismiss executives of the agencies except the Federal Reserve.
The court’s conservative majority sided with Trump in a closely watched case that tested the limits of presidential control over independent regulatory bodies. The decision halts a lower court’s order that had called for the reinstatement of the two officials and represents a significant victory for Trump in his effort to expand executive power.
At issue were the dismissals of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Both were appointed Democrats and had argued their terminations were unlawful, citing statutory protections that limit dismissal to cases of misconduct or neglect of duty.
Despite those legal safeguards, the high court ruled that presidents may remove executive branch officials who carry out their policies, unless specifically exempted by prior rulings.
“The Constitution permits the President to remove without cause those who exercise executive power on his behalf,” the majority wrote, adding that such authority is only subject to “narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.”
However, the justices made clear that their decision does not extend to the Federal Reserve, an independent body that sets U.S. monetary policy and whose independence is considered vital to global financial stability.
“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,” the court stated, pushing back against arguments that the ruling could open the door for presidential interference with the central bank.
The case drew particular attention due to Trump's previous criticism of the Fed and its chairman, raising concerns that a broader ruling might undermine the institution’s autonomy and rattle financial markets.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, warning that the decision erodes long-standing protections for independent agencies and undermines a 1935 precedent that insulated such bodies from political pressure.
They argued that the firings of Wilcox and Harris should not be permitted at this stage of the legal process and cautioned against blurring the lines between executive influence and regulatory independence.
The ruling could significantly reshape how federal agencies operate, especially those with quasi-judicial responsibilities like the NLRB and MSPB. Critics warn it opens the door to politicizing roles traditionally shielded from partisan turnover, while supporters claim it restores proper presidential control over the executive branch.
Still, by shielding the Federal Reserve from the reach of this decision, the court preserved a critical safeguard in the global economic order — one many feared could have been upended.
