Restoring Presidential Authority

Supreme Court Rulings Reaffirm Constitutional Accountability

The Supreme Court’s June 29, 2026, decisions mark a significant step toward restoring the President’s constitutional authority over the executive branch. The overturning of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States stands as the most consequential ruling. While the Court issued a narrower decision in the matter involving the removal of Linda Cook, the Slaughter ruling opens the door for a long-overdue examination of the Federal Reserve’s claimed independence. These developments challenge the notion of agencies operating outside the three branches established by the Constitution.

Constitutional Foundations of Executive Power

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution vests the executive power in a single President. This grant is not shared with independent entities. The Appointments Clause in Article II, Section 2 requires Senate confirmation for principal officers and authorizes Congress to vest appointment of inferior officers in the President alone. The Take Care Clause in Article II, Section 3 directs the President to ensure faithful execution of the laws. These provisions establish a unitary executive accountable to the people through elections, not insulated bureaucracies. Early precedent in Myers v. United States (1926) affirmed the President’s broad removal power over executive officers as essential to this structure.

Humphrey’s Executor and the Unauthorized Fourth Branch

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935) created an exception allowing Congress to limit presidential removal of certain commissioners for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The Court reasoned that the Federal Trade Commission performed quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, justifying insulation from full executive control. This precedent enabled the growth of independent agencies exercising substantial executive power without direct presidential oversight. No text in the Constitution authorizes such a fourth branch. Agencies wielding rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicative authority must remain accountable to one of the three branches or risk violating separation of powers.

The 2026 Supreme Court Decisions

The June 29, 2026, rulings build directly on earlier limitations of Humphrey’s Executor. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Court held that for-cause removal protections for a single-head agency violated Article II because they prevented the President from ensuring faithful execution of the laws. Collins v. Yellen (2021) extended this logic to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The 2026 Slaughter decision applies similar reasoning to broader agency structures, explicitly opening re-evaluation of entities long treated as independent. The Court punted on the specific facts of the Linda Cook removal case with a contradictory and narrow holding that left larger questions unresolved. Nevertheless, the core holding overturning Humphrey’s Executor eliminates the constitutional foundation for agencies operating beyond presidential direction.

Implications for the Federal Reserve and Other Agencies

The Slaughter ruling directly implicates the Federal Reserve’s structure. Statutory provisions purporting to grant the Board of Governors independence from presidential removal lack constitutional grounding. The Fed performs core executive functions through monetary policy implementation and bank supervision. Shielding these functions from presidential accountability contradicts the unitary executive established in Article II. Other independent agencies, including those with multimember boards, now face similar scrutiny. Without removal authority, the President cannot fulfill the constitutional duty to oversee execution of the laws. These agencies must answer to the executive branch, Congress through appropriations and legislation, or the judiciary through review, rather than existing in an unaccountable void.

The Requirement of Accountability to the People

Independent agencies were never contemplated by the Constitution’s design. All exercises of executive power belong under the President’s supervision so that ultimate responsibility rests with an elected official. The people retain the ability to hold the President accountable at the ballot box only when agencies operate within the constitutional framework. Restoring removal authority aligns federal administration with the separation of powers and prevents the accumulation of unchecked authority in entities answerable to no one. The 2026 decisions provide the legal foundation to realign these agencies with the three branches authorized by the Constitution, ensuring genuine oversight rather than bureaucratic insulation.