Slaughter warns of ongoing threats to Federal Reserve’s independence after Supreme Court reshapes presidential power

The Supreme Court just handed the president a much bigger stick. And while the Federal Reserve dodged the immediate blow, the threat hasn’t gone away.

On June 29, the Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. Slaughter that President Trump could remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, overturning nearly a century of precedent. In a companion case, Trump v. Cook, the justices upheld for-cause removal protections for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Two cases, two agencies, two very different outcomes.

One precedent dies, another lives on borrowed time

The Slaughter ruling killed off Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 decision that established the principle that presidents can’t fire leaders of independent agencies on a whim. For 91 years, that case stood as the firewall between political pressure and regulatory independence. Now it’s gone.

In English: the president can now remove commissioners at agencies like the FTC whenever he wants, for any reason or no reason at all.

The Fed, however, got a carve-out. The Court recognized the central bank’s unique historical role in managing US monetary policy and left its removal protections intact. Justice Kavanaugh expressed concerns that even temporary uncertainty about the Federal Reserve could lead to economic turmoil.

Slaughter herself has been blunt about what this means going forward. She described the ruling as a “recipe for corruption,” arguing it allows political interference to override independent oversight.

Why crypto markets should be paying attention

No crypto tokens were mentioned in either ruling or the related commentary.

The regulatory framework around crypto in the US has always been a patchwork, stitched together by agencies like the SEC, CFTC, and yes, the FTC, which has brought enforcement actions related to crypto fraud and deceptive practices. If the heads of those agencies now serve at the pleasure of the president, the entire regulatory posture toward digital assets can shift with every administration.

The doctrinal crack that won’t close

The Court didn’t establish a clear, universal rule. It said the president can fire some independent agency leaders but not others, based on the agency’s historical role and function.

The Fed survived not because the Court articulated a robust theory of central bank independence, but because the justices were spooked by the economic consequences of ruling otherwise. Kavanaugh’s concurrence made that calculus explicit.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.