REPORT: SCOTUS overturns 90 years of precedent and gives Trump the power to fire at will

The Supreme Court rewrites the rules of executive power

On June 29, 2026, the United States Supreme Court handed down one of its most explosive rulings in decades. By 6 votes to 3, the justices officially overturned the Humphrey's Executor precedent established in 1935, a pillar of ninety years of federal agency independence. The president may now fire agency commissioners at his absolute discretion, with no obligation to justify the decision on grounds of misconduct or incapacity.

This ruling, which centered on the case of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission dismissed by Trump in March 2025, profoundly redraws the constitutional architecture of the United States. The separation of powers as it had been understood since the Roosevelt era has just absorbed a structural shock whose effects will be felt for generations.

A 1935 precedent erased with a conservative stroke of the pen

The Humphrey's Executor precedent dated from 1935, under the era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and protected agency commissioners from arbitrary presidential dismissal. For nine decades, this bulwark had allowed bodies such as the FTC, the SEC, the NLRB, and the CFPB to operate sheltered from direct political pressure from the Oval Office.

With this ruling by the conservative majority — the six justices appointed by Republican presidents voting in a bloc — that institutional shield no longer exists. The question is no longer whether the next president will be able to purge federal agencies of officials deemed disloyal, but when and how it will happen. American judicial history has just turned a brutal page.

This morning of June 29, 2026, something changed forever in the democratic architecture of the United States. I don't say that for dramatic effect — I say it because ninety years of legal doctrine is an edifice that nobody should overturn without reckoning with the weight of what they are about to destroy.This is what happens when you entrust justices with lifetime appointments to reinterpret democracy: they can undo in a single afternoon what generations built with care. I won't say Trump is wrong on strictly constitutional grounds — the debate is real — but the speed with which this majority swept away ninety years of institutional practice is breathtaking.

The dismissal that triggered the legal battle

In March 2025, Donald Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner, along with Alvaro Bedoya, another commissioner of the same agency. These abrupt dismissals were immediately challenged in court, with both commissioners arguing that the law establishing the FTC required valid grounds — misconduct, incapacity, or neglect — for their removal.

Slaughter had refused to leave her post, continuing to report to work and presenting herself as an active member of the commission. She thus became the embodiment of an unprecedented constitutional standoff between the executive and independent agencies, a fight that went all the way to the nation's highest court.

The logic of the conservative majority

The six conservative justices ruled that statutory clauses protecting agency commissioners from arbitrary dismissal violated the principle of separation of powers as they interpret it: executive power belongs entirely to the president, and any limitation on his ability to control subordinates is unconstitutional. This so-called unitary executive reading is an old conservative doctrine, but never before applied with such bluntness.

The three dissenting justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — denounced a ruling that transforms the president into a de facto monarch over federal agencies, able to silence any independent regulatory oversight by simple political whim. Their fierce dissent will remain in the annals as a solemn warning.

Rebecca Slaughter is not just a name in a legal file. She is a woman who did her job, who refused to leave, who fought to the end. The court ruling against her on the merits does not change what she represents: institutional resistance in the face of concentrated power. That deserves respect, even if you disagree on the doctrine.

Lisa Cook and the central bank exception

In a separate ruling handed down simultaneously, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 to block the immediate firing of Lisa Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve. This narrower ruling establishes an explicit exception for the Fed, whose independence is deemed necessary to global financial stability.

The reasoning of the majority in this case is pragmatic: global financial markets depend on the credibility and autonomy of the American central bank. Allowing the president to dismiss Federal Reserve governors on political whim would send a devastating signal to investors worldwide and destabilize bond markets, currencies, and interest rates on an international scale.

An exception that raises as many questions as it settles

But this exception for the Fed opens a conceptual Pandora's box. If the Court can decide that one agency is too systemically important to be subject to absolute presidential control, who decides which agency deserves such protection next? The SEC? The FDIC? The CFPB? The criteria remain vague, which guarantees another round of litigation in the federal courts.

It is also worth noting that the 5-4 vote on the Fed reveals fractures within the conservative majority itself. Justice John Roberts, it is said, was among the majority voices protecting Lisa Cook, confirming his role as a pragmatic arbiter within an otherwise deeply ideological court. That nuance is critical for what comes next.

The Fed saved at the last minute is the financial West catching its breath. Imagine for a moment Trump replacing Federal Reserve governors with loyalists: interest rates would become a political tool, the dollar would lose its credibility, and all of Europe would suffer for it. This time, pragmatism won. But for how long?

FTC, SEC, NLRB, CFPB: four pillars under threat

The SCOTUS ruling of June 29, 2026 directly exposes several major independent agencies to potential political purging. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which regulates competition and protects consumers, is already directly affected since its case served as the basis for the ruling. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), guardian of the stock markets, is now vulnerable. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), protector of labor rights, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) join the list of potential targets.

These four bodies regulate entire sectors of the American economy, from workers' rights to oversight of major technology companies. Their placement under direct political control of the executive means their mandate can be hollowed out as soon as a president hostile to regulation takes power — which is precisely the case with Trump.

The tech industry and Wall Street quietly rejoice

Behind the scenes on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, the ruling was received with barely concealed satisfaction. An FTC without independent commissioners is an agency that will no longer be able to block the giant mergers of major tech or pharmaceutical companies. A CFPB under presidential control is a regulator that can be neutralized the moment its investigations become too embarrassing for the big banks.

Lobbyists spent years trying to weaken these agencies. The Supreme Court has now handed them, free of charge, what no lobbying campaign had managed to achieve: constitutional legitimation of the political subordination of regulators. That is a significant ideological and economic victory for the deregulation camp.

Every time Trump weakens a watchdog institution, it is millions of ordinary consumers who pay the price. Large corporations have lawyers to protect them. Workers, small investors, families in debt — they have only these agencies. And now even that can be taken from them by presidential decree.

The 1935 precedent in its historical context

In 1935, the Supreme Court had established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States that President Roosevelt could not dismiss at will William Humphrey, an FTC commissioner under the Hoover administration whose term was protected by law. That ruling enshrined the idea that quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative agencies could exist outside the direct control of the executive.

That precedent had enabled the emergence of a vast independent administrative state, sometimes criticized for its opacity and bureaucracy, but also praised for its stability and imperviousness to short-term partisan pressures. Ninety years of jurisprudence, academic doctrine, and institutional practice have just been swept away by a ruling written in the ideology of the unitary executive.

Constitutional scholars and former justices in a state of shock

Leading constitutional scholars immediately denounced the ruling. For many, even those who had criticized the excessive reach of Humphrey's Executor, overturning a nine-decade precedent without any transition or safeguards is a break in judicial method as serious as the break on substance. The doctrine of stare decisis — respect for established precedents — is supposed to be one of the foundations of stability in American law.

Some observers point out that the same conservative majority had overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, demonstrating its willingness to erase landmark precedents when its doctrine demands it. The Roberts Court is reshaping constitutional America at a pace that even its harshest critics had not anticipated.

What troubles me deeply is the method. One can debate the merits of the unitary executive as a constitutional theory. But overturning ninety years of practice with no transition mechanism, no residual protection — that is judicial brutality. Great reforms come with safeguards. Not by leveling everything at once.

The American left on maximum alert

Democratic members of Congress immediately denounced the ruling as an existential threat to American democracy. The Senate minority leader spoke of transforming the president into a "constitutional king," capable of deploying the entire regulatory apparatus for partisan political ends. Calls for constitutional reforms have already emerged, even if their feasibility in a divided Congress remains extremely limited.

Consumer advocacy organizations, unions such as the AFL-CIO, and progressive groups announced emergency campaigns to alert public opinion. But faced with a constitutional ruling from the Supreme Court, legal options are nearly nonexistent. It would take a constitutional amendment or a sufficiently ingenious statute to work around the new interpretation — both options appear out of reach in the short term.

Republicans celebrate a historic doctrinal victory

On the Republican side, the mood was celebratory. Trump posted on Truth Social that the ruling represented a "BIG WIN" for the presidency and for the American people, claiming that unelected bureaucrats would no longer be able to block the will of the president. Conservative think tanks such as the Federalist Society hailed the ruling as the culmination of decades of doctrinal work.

Republican senators described the ruling as a "restoration of constitutional order," arguing that independent agencies had always been a democratic anomaly — powerful entities escaping all electoral accountability. That narrative will now become the mantra of the American right for years to come, regardless of the practical consequences.

There is a cruel irony in the Republican discourse on "democratic accountability" for agencies. These same politicians who claim to want more democracy are centralizing all power in the hands of a single man. That is not democracy. It is the concentration of power with a pretty constitutional veneer.

Consumer protection weakened

The FTC and the CFPB are the two agencies that most directly protect ordinary consumers: antitrust investigations, oversight of predatory lending practices, corporate merger reviews. If these agencies come under the direct political control of the White House, their independence to investigate and impose sanctions will be structurally compromised.

Economists warn that the accelerated deregulation that could follow would have particularly devastating effects on the middle and working classes: higher prices in sectors with limited competition, unchecked abusive financial practices, mergers of economic giants crushing smaller players. The ruling of June 29 is not abstract — it touches the daily economic lives of tens of millions of Americans.

Financial markets between euphoria and anxiety

On Wall Street, reactions were nuanced. The assurance that the Federal Reserve remains protected avoided an acute crisis of confidence in the bond markets. But uncertainty over financial regulatory agencies such as the SEC created volatility in the banking and technology sectors. Institutional investors know that regulators under direct political control can produce as much instability as regulators that are too strict.

The US dollar dipped slightly in the hours following the ruling, before recovering as soon as confirmation came that the Fed was untouched. On the currency markets, the stability of the American central bank remains the determining factor. But over the long term, an America whose regulatory agencies are politically instrumentalized sends a troubling signal to trading partners and foreign investors.

Markets were relieved that the Fed was spared, and I understand that. But the real question is not financial: it is moral. How many institutions can be weakened before the entire system loses its legitimacy? There is a threshold beyond which even Wall Street can no longer compensate for institutional erosion.

Brussels and European capitals on alert

Across Europe, the American Supreme Court ruling was followed with manifest concern. For Brussels, an American partner whose regulatory agencies are under the direct political oversight of the presidency is an unpredictable partner — on digital competition, data protection, and antitrust rules, already significant divergences risk widening if the FTC and SEC become instruments of Trumpist commercial policy.

European diplomats quoted by Le Monde expressed particular concerns about the future of transatlantic regulatory cooperation. If the FTC is instrumentalized to favor American tech giants at the expense of European competition rules, commercial tensions between the two blocs could reach unprecedented levels, going beyond even the tariff wars.

A signal for authoritarian regimes around the world

Beyond Europe, the ruling sends a message to the entire world about the institutional trajectory of the United States. Beijing, Moscow, and Tehran are watching with interest as the world's leading democracy dismantles its own safeguards. For autocrats, this is confirmation that even the most solid democracies can transform from within — not through military coups, but through successive judicial decisions carefully orchestrated over time.

This geopolitical reading may be the most troubling of all. The West draws its strength not only from its military and economic power, but from its institutional legitimacy — the shared belief that rules apply to everyone, even the most powerful. Every time this legitimacy erodes, the entire Western camp weakens in the face of its adversaries.

I am pro-Western at heart. I believe the West still represents the best model of political organization we have invented. That is precisely why it kills me to watch Washington self-destruct while Beijing and Moscow take notes with satisfaction.

A theory forged in the Republican corridors of the Reagan years

The unitary executive doctrine was not born with Trump. It was conceptualized and promoted by conservative legal scholars starting in the 1980s, particularly within the Federalist Society, as a response to the expansion of the administrative state under the New Deal and Great Society. The central argument: all executive power constitutionally belongs to the president, and independent agencies represent an illegal distortion of that architecture.

Generations of conservative law clerks, law professors, and activists spent forty years working to bring this doctrine before the Supreme Court. The nomination of three justices by Trump during his first term — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — ultimately created the majority needed to put this long-term project into action.

The systemic risks of an all-powerful presidency

A president capable of controlling all federal regulatory agencies becomes, in practice, a dominant economic actor. He can direct antitrust investigations in favor of his allies and against his adversaries. He can paralyze environmental, financial, or public health oversight in sectors he wants to deregulate. He can use the FTC to threaten media outlets whose coverage displeases him.

These risks are not theoretical: they have already been observed in democracies that have gone through phases of strong presidentialism, from Orbán's Hungary to Erdoğan's Turkey. The pattern is similar each time: one institution after another falls under the ruling party's control, and democratic reconquest becomes exponentially more difficult at each step.

I want to be honest: I don't know whether Trump will use these new powers as aggressively as his critics fear. But in a democracy, the question is not "will this leader abuse them?" The question is "will the next one?" And on that, the answer does not reassure me.

Can Congress legislate to counter the ruling?

Several constitutional lawyers suggest that Congress could try to counter the Supreme Court ruling through legislation creating new statutory protections for agency commissioners — anchoring them not in ordinary laws but in quasi-constitutional structures more resistant to presidential attack. But the political feasibility of such measures in a Republican Congress is near zero in the short term.

The paradox is brutal: the only power capable of checking a strengthened executive is precisely the legislative power, but it is currently held by the same political family that supported and celebrated the Court's ruling. The institutional balance that should reequilibrate the system is locked at the same angle of tilt.

The November 2026 midterms as a democratic test

The November 3, 2026 midterm elections represent the next test of American democratic resilience. If Democrats regain the majority in the House or the Senate, they will theoretically have the legislative tools to attempt to counterbalance the SCOTUS ruling through a new law. But the window is narrow, and the Supreme Court's precedents on interpreting agency-protective statutes are not encouraging.

In the meantime, every passing day consolidates the new constitutional reality. Agencies that had operated on the basis of independence will adapt their behavior, anticipating the wishes of the executive to avoid conflict. It is often this mechanism of institutional self-censorship — not the firings themselves — that produces the most lasting effects on the functioning of institutions.

The November 2026 midterms may be the last moment for America to choose a different direction before the institutional damage becomes irreversible. This is not an ordinary election. It is a referendum on American democracy itself. I hope voters understand that.

The bitter lessons of Hungary and Poland

Europe has already seen this film. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán methodically placed independent institutions — competition authority, media regulation agencies, the central bank — under political control between 2010 and 2014. The result: a democracy that retained the formal appearances of pluralism while gutting its institutions of substance. In Poland, the similar attempt by PiS over the judiciary triggered a deep political crisis that lasted until 2023.

The difference with the United States is one of scale and global reach. What Trump is doing in Washington does not only affect the 330 million Americans — it redefines the rules of the game for all Western democracies that look to the United States as the model and guarantor of the liberal international order.

The Israeli example and the lessons of a contested judicial reform

In Israel, the Netanyahu government's attempt in 2023 to reform the judicial system to reduce the power of the Supreme Court triggered months of massive protests, paralyzed part of the reserve army, and caused an acute economic crisis. The country pulled back, temporarily. That experience shows that organized civil societies can resist these drift patterns — but at the cost of considerable effort and sustained mobilization.

American civil society, with its associations, universities, unions, independent media, lawyers, and district judges, represents a considerable force of institutional resistance. The real question is whether this resistance will be sufficiently coordinated and durable to counterbalance an executive whose powers have just been constitutionally expanded.

I watch what is happening in America and think of the Poles, the Hungarians, the Israelis who had to take to the streets to defend their institutions. Democracy is not only defended at the ballot box. It is defended every day, in every courtroom, in every newsroom, in every demonstration. It is exhausting. And yet, it is the only way.

Three possible scenarios for the coming months

Analysts are considering three distinct scenarios for federal agencies in the months following the SCOTUS ruling. The first is an active purge: Trump immediately replaces all Democratic commissioners with loyalists, restructuring the agencies' mandates in line with his deregulatory agenda. This scenario is the most likely in the short term for the FTC and the CFPB.

The second scenario is gradual neutralization: new appointments progressively transform the agencies into passive entities that open fewer investigations, impose fewer sanctions, and allow markets to self-regulate. This scenario is more insidious because it is less visible in the media, but potentially more durable. The third scenario — internal resistance from career civil servants — remains possible but has been weakened by the judicial ruling that strips away statutory protections.

Career civil servants between duty and vulnerability

Thousands of federal civil servants within these agencies find themselves in a precarious position. Their professional mission commits them to enforcing regulatory laws independent of political pressure. But their legal status has just lost part of its protections. The fear of dismissal should not be underestimated as a factor in modifying institutional behavior.

Some civil servants will choose to resist — carefully documenting political pressures, alerting appropriate whistleblowers, maintaining the rigor of their procedures. Others will adapt. It is in this silent, media-invisible standoff that a large part of the fate of these institutions will be decided in the coming years.

These anonymous civil servants who continue their work despite political pressure deserve to be called heroes. Not media heroes with op-eds in major newspapers — quiet heroes, who do their work correctly because it is right. They are the ones, ultimately, who keep the rule of law alive.

Hundreds of cases to be reexamined

The SCOTUS ruling of June 29, 2026 will trigger an avalanche of litigation in the lower federal courts. Dozens of cases in which agency commissioners had acted on the basis of protections the Court has just invalidated will be challenged. FTC antitrust decisions, SEC sanctions, NLRB labor protections could be challenged retroactively.

Law firms specializing in administrative law are bracing for years of intense litigation. Every major corporation that lost a regulatory battle before an independent agency in recent years will examine whether the new doctrine offers avenues for appeal. The economic cost of this legal uncertainty will be considerable, regardless of the final outcomes.

The Supreme Court facing its own contradictions

The Supreme Court itself will have to confront the contradictions created by its two simultaneous rulings of June 29. How to maintain the Fed exception while applying the general unitary executive rule? The "systemic" financial criterion used to protect the central bank is vague enough to be contested in dozens of other contexts. District judges will wonder what exactly "too systemic to be fireable" means.

The Roberts Court has created a clear doctrine in its main component, but a murky exception in its secondary component. This structural ambiguity guarantees that it will have to revisit these questions in coming years, probably through new rulings that clarify or modulate the scope of the June 29, 2026 decision.

American constitutional law is living its most turbulent period since the New Deal battles of the 1930s. And as in the 1930s, the outcome will depend in part on who appoints the next justices. Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for decades. That may be the essential point.

NATO allies between mistrust and adaptation

The NATO allies who count on American institutional stability as a guarantee of the world order are looking at the June 29, 2026 ruling with deep ambivalence. On one hand, the United States remains the indispensable military and economic power they cannot do without. On the other, an America whose regulatory institutions are politically instrumentalized is an America less predictable in its commercial, financial, and diplomatic commitments.

Capitals such as Berlin, Paris, Ottawa, and Tokyo received the SCOTUS ruling with particular attention. For these partners, the question is not doctrinal — it is practical: if the American FTC becomes a tool of commercial policy under direct presidential control, bilateral trade and regulatory negotiations become infinitely more complex. Every agreement must now account for the risk that the American regulatory framework could change radically from one presidency to the next.

The West cannot afford a weakened America

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea constitute combined threats requiring a coherent and sustained Western response. That coherence requires an America whose institutions are credible and stable. Every weakening of America's institutional architecture is a strategic gift offered to the West's adversaries, who have been betting for years on the erosion of liberal democracy from within.

This is not an emotional argument — it is a cold geopolitical calculation. Beijing monitors every crack in the Western bloc. Moscow exploits every narrative of American dysfunction to weaken transatlantic solidarity. Giving these adversaries new informational ammunition by weakening America's independent agencies is a luxury the West simply cannot afford in this geostrategic context.

Let our European allies understand clearly: what is happening in Washington is not a domestic American problem. It is a Western problem. And every democracy in the Atlantic Alliance has a vital interest in the United States remaining institutionally sound. Saying that is not interference — it is solidarity.

June 29, 2026 in the history books

In a hundred years, historians of American law will mark a major line of rupture at June 29, 2026. Whether that date is cited as the moment the United States restored the original constitutional order or as the moment it began dismantling its democratic safeguards will depend entirely on what subsequent generations make of this new legal framework. What is certain is that nothing will ever be the same in the relationship between the federal executive and independent agencies.

The West needs a strong and institutionally sound America. European democracies, Asian allies, partners around the world are watching Washington with growing concern. Not because they want a weak America — they need a strong America — but because they know, as I know, that a democracy whose institutions are hollowed of their independence is no longer truly a democracy. It is a nominal democracy. And nominals don't last.

Resistance as the only reasonable horizon

Despite everything, institutional, judicial, and civic resistance remains the only viable response. The 43 states with their own regulatory agencies, bar associations, non-governmental organizations, whistleblowers, investigative journalists — all are now on the front line, documenting and challenging the abuses that may result from this ruling. This is not a lost war. It is a harder war than expected.

And if the November 2026 midterms produce a shift in the congressional majority, the American legislature could recover the tools to partially rebalance what has just been undone. Hope is not naive — it is grounded in constitutional mechanisms that, despite everything, continue to function. But it will require American citizens to collectively decide they want to use them.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.