Supreme Court to Decide Trump Removal Authority in Twin Cases With Direct Impact on NLRB Protections

The Supreme Court will rule on President Donald Trump's authority to remove federal officials in two separate cases involving FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, according to Fox News. Legal experts say the Court may draw sharp distinctions between the agencies, potentially granting the Federal Reserve special protection while exposing other independent agencies—including the National Labor Relations Board—to broader presidential control.

The twin cases present fundamentally different legal questions despite both challenging limits on presidential firing authority. In Slaughter v. Trump, the administration argues that statutory restrictions on removing FTC commissioners violate Article II executive powers. In Trump v. Cook, the dispute centers on whether Trump satisfied the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" removal standard when he fired Cook over alleged mortgage disclosure misconduct.

Court Signals Federal Reserve May Receive Unique Treatment

The Supreme Court has already indicated the Federal Reserve occupies distinct constitutional territory. In its recent Trump v. Wilcox ruling, the Court allowed removals of NLRB and Merit Systems Protection Board officials to proceed while litigation continued. But justices explicitly rejected arguments that this decision would undermine Federal Reserve tenure protections, calling the Fed a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity" with historical precedent dating to the First and Second Banks of the United States.

Joel Alicea, a Catholic University of America law professor, told Fox News that Solicitor General John Sauer deployed markedly different strategies in the two cases. "In the Slaughter case, they are making the explicit constitutional argument that it doesn't matter what the statute says, the president gets to fire the FTC commissioners at will," Alicea said. The administration avoided that broad constitutional challenge in Cook, he noted.

Erin Hawley, chair of Lex Politica's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, said the Court appears ready to distinguish the Fed based on its monetary policy function. "The Supreme Court has signaled that it believes the core function of the Fed—setting monetary policy—be unique in that it has a historical analogue in the First Bank," Hawley said. "Based on history, that core function may well satisfy constitutional separation of powers."

NLRB Removals Already in Effect Under Earlier Ruling

The Trump v. Wilcox decision effectively greenlit presidential removal of officials at agencies lacking the Federal Reserve's historical pedigree. NLRB members, who serve five-year terms and can be removed only "for cause" under current law, now serve at the pleasure of the president while litigation proceeds. The Board enforces Section 7 rights to organize and Section 8 unfair labor practice prohibitions—core protections that worker advocates say require insulation from political pressure.

A bipartisan group of former Federal Reserve chairs and Treasury secretaries filed a brief warning that presidential control over Fed governors could trigger economic instability. "There is broad consensus among economists, based on decades of macroeconomic research, that a more independent central bank will lead to lower and more stable inflation without creating higher unemployment," the filing stated. No comparable brief defending NLRB independence has emerged in the public record.

Legal experts told Fox News they expect the Court to uphold broader removal power in Slaughter while preserving Fed protections in Cook. That outcome would expose the FTC, NLRB, and other agencies to the same removal authority the executive branch currently exercises over Cabinet officials.

Slaughter Case Tests 90-Year-Old Precedent on Independent Agencies

Slaughter v. Trump directly challenges Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 Supreme Court decision that upheld statutory limits on presidential removal of FTC commissioners. The case has become a major test of unitary executive theory—the principle that Article II grants the president control over all officials exercising executive power.

The administration argues that agencies wielding enforcement power, like the FTC and NLRB, must answer directly to the president rather than operate as independent bodies. Trump fired Slaughter in March 2025; she sued to block the removal, citing the FTC Act's provision allowing removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."

If the Court overturns or narrows Humphrey's Executor, future presidents could install and remove NLRB members based on their policy positions rather than meeting a "for cause" standard. Worker advocates have warned this would turn the Board into a political tool that swings sharply with each administration.

What This Means for Union Members

The Supreme Court's rulings in these cases will directly determine how consistently the NLRB enforces organizing rights and unfair labor practice laws. If the Court upholds broad presidential removal authority in Slaughter, union organizers should expect rapid Board turnover with each new administration and enforcement priorities that shift based on White House politics rather than statutory mandate.

The Wilcox decision already allows NLRB removals to proceed during litigation, meaning the current Board composition reflects Trump's preferences. Locals planning representation campaigns or unfair labor practice charges should assess whether filing now or waiting for Board composition changes serves their strategic interests.

Unions that depend on NLRB enforcement to stop employer retaliation, win card-check recognition, or compel good-faith collective bargaining face a future where the agency's effectiveness depends entirely on presidential politics. Organizers may need to rely more heavily on direct action, community pressure, and contract enforcement through arbitration rather than counting on consistent NLRB remedies.