Trump v. Slaughter

et al. v. SLAUGHTER

certiorari before judgment to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 25–332. Argued December 8, 2025—Decided June 29, 2026 The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a regulatory agency that has accumulated vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory powers. The FTC's powers belong not to the President or his appointees alone, but instead to five Commissioners, each of whom serves for seven years and may be removed by the President only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 15 U. S. C. § 41. Soon after President Trump began his second term in January 2025, he fred the FTC's two Democratic appointees, Rebecca Slaughter and Al-varo Bedoya. He did not identify a cause under the statute. He instead told them their “continued service on the FTC [was] inconsistent with [his] Administration's priorities” and that they were removed “pursuant to [his] authority under Article II of the Constitution.” App. 28. Slaughter filed suit against the President and other executive officials, seeking relief to restore her to office. She argued that her removal was ultra vires, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated the Constitution. The District Court granted Slaughter's motion for summary judgment. It acknowledged that Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, generally permits the President to remove executive officers at will, but explained that Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, carved out an exception for the FTC. The court declared the President's “purported removal” ultra vires and issued a permanent injunction barring interference “with Ms. Slaughter's right to perform her lawful duties.” App. 90–91. A divided Court of Appeals denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal, and this Court stayed the District Court's order and granted certiorari before judgment. Held: The FTC's for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Pp. 431–464. (a) The Constitution vests “[t]he executive Power” in a “President of the United States of America” and instructs that he “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §§ 1, 3. To vest the executive power in one person was to establish a hierarchy—a “Chief Magistrate” with whom the buck stops, and below him various “assistants or deputies” who “derive their offices from his appointment” and remain “sub-

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

ject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, p. 436 (C. Rossiter ed.) (A. Hamilton). To remain accountable to the President, those off-cers must be removable by the President. Pp. 433–442.

(1) The idea that one President would be in charge was by no means a foregone conclusion in 1787. The furry of state constitutions that followed the Declaration of Independence “made of the gubernatorial magistrate a new kind of creature, a very pale refection indeed of his regal ancestor.” G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787, p. 136. Almost every State had but a nominal Governor, who could act only with his council's consent. These early chief executives were “little more than chairmen of their executive boards.” Id., at 138. The Framers chose to depart from this model, for they had seen its flaws up close. For “fear” of “monarchical . . . power,” William Living-ston lamented, the States “improvidently” had devised executives “too weak & ineffcatious to operate with proper energy & vigour.” 5 Papers of William Livingston 56–57 (C. Prince, M. Lustig, D. Vorhees, & R. Weiss eds.). Thus when delegates at the Constitutional Convention objected to “unity in the Executive magistracy” as “the foetus of monarchy,” 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 66 (M. Farrand ed.) (E. Randolph), others replied that the concern was quite backward. “[I]nstead of being the fetus of Monarchy,” they explained, “[u]nity in the Executive” was “the best safeguard against” it—for only a “single Person” could produce the “vigor and activity” necessary to preserve the Constitution's separation of powers. Id., at 66, 109 (J. Wilson). In opting for one President, however, the Framers did not opt for the President to work alone. They knew that Congress would “institut[e] the great Departments” and allow the President to “appoint[ ] officers therein, to assist [him] in discharging the duties of his trust.” 30 Writings of George Washington 334 (J. Fitzpatrick ed.). These officers were to serve as envoys of the President, not his equals. They “ought to be considered as the assistants or deputies of the Chief Magistrate,” Hamilton explained, “and on this account, they ought to derive their offices from his appointment, at least from his nomination, and ought to be subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, at 436. Because these officers were subject to the President's superintendence, they had to be removable by him at will. The power to remove at will was a necessary corollary of the Constitution's design. The “unity” of the Executive Branch would be “destroyed” if it were vested “ostensibly in one man, subject in whole or in part to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counselors to him.” Id., No. 70, at 424 (A. Hamilton). Text and structure thus both taught that the

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

President had to be able to remove those who fail to live up to their duties, lest he fail to live up to his.

(2) This aspect of the President's role was confirmed in the Constitution's first year and the years that followed, resulting in a “regular course of practice” that “liquidate[d] & settle[d]” the President's power of removal. 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed.). When the First Congress met in 1789, one of its first tasks was to establish the first executive departments—and with them the first department heads. Under the Constitution, those officers had to be appointed by the President, with the “Advice and Consent” of the Senate. Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. The question before Congress was how those officers were to be removed. Madison contended that removal was part of “the Executive power” vested in the President, which “the Legislature has no right to diminish or modify.” 1 Annals of Cong. 463. It is only with that power, he explained, that “the chain of dependence [can] be preserved”—“the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest” made to “depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” Id., at 499. Madison emerged victorious, and Congress's confirmation of the President's power gained fame as “the Decision of 1789.” Chief Justice Marshall described the decision as “a full expression of the sense of the legislature,” 5 J. Marshall, The Life of George Washington 199–200, and early Presidents of all persuasions agreed. Pp. 438–442. (b) What text, history, and structure settle, the Court's precedent confirms—the President may remove his subordinates at will. Pp. 442–453. (1) As early as 1839, the Court reaffirmed what the First Congress had held. It was “very early adopted, as the practical construction of the Constitution,” the Court noted, that the power “to remove, where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the Constitution,” was “vested in the President alone.” Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 259. See also Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324, 330 (“[T]he decision of Congress in 1789, and the universal practice of the Government under it, ha[s] settled the question beyond any power of alteration”). The Court's landmark decision in Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, confirmed the President's power to fire his subordinates at will. The case arose when President Wilson fred Frank Myers—the postmaster in Portland, Oregon—without consulting the Senate, notwithstanding an 1876 statute that required the President to receive the “advice and consent of the Senate” not only to appoint postmasters but also to remove them. § 6, 19 Stat. 80. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Taft noted that in the wake of the political differences following the Civil War between President Johnson—a Jacksonian Democrat—and congres-

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

sional Republicans, Congress had sought to “curtail the then acknowledged powers of the President” with the Tenure of Office Act. Myers, 272 U. S., at 165–166. Under that law, the President was required to receive the Senate's consent before firing most officers. See ibid. “[T]he injury and invalidity” of the Act was “immediately recognized by the Executive and objected to”—and not just by President Johnson, but by General Grant who succeeded him. Id., at 167. What these events revealed, Chief Justice Taft wrote, was a consistent Presidential rejection of “the validity of such legislation” as incompatible with “the legislative action of 1789.” Id., at 172–173.

The law concerning postmasters thus raised the question whether “to set aside” the First Congress's “construction, thus buttressed, and adopt an adverse view” contrary to the Constitution's text, history, and structure. Id., at 175. The Court refused to do so, and instead hewed to the “constitutional construction . . . reached by the First Congress . . . and acquiesced in by the whole Government for three-quarters of a century.” Id., at 176. Pp. 442–445.

(2) Nine years after Myers, the Court decided Humphrey's Executor v. United States. Pp. 445–453.

(i) Humphrey's arose when President Roosevelt fred an FTC Commissioner without specifying a cause for his removal, contrary to a statute permitting removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” § 1, 38 Stat. 718. The Court ruled against President Roosevelt, distinguishing Myers by explaining that some presidentially appointed officials may perform “executive function[s]” but exercise “no part of the executive power,” 295 U. S., at 628, and holding that the FTC's duties were “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative,” id., at 624. Because these quasi functions did not require the use of “executive power,” the Court reasoned, Humphrey needed to answer only to Congress and the courts. Id., at 628. Pp. 445–447. (ii) Humphrey's framework has not withstood the test of time. From the start, Humphrey's was tethered to a highly circumscribed view of the FTC's role. Humphrey's by its terms applied only to agencies that occupy “no place in the executive department,” are “independent of executive authority,” and exercise “no part of the executive power.” Id., at 625, 628. Indeed, the Court took pains to emphasize that “the character of the office”—executive or nonexecutive—would determine the result of future cases. Id., at 631. In later cases, the Court concluded that more functions fell on the executive side of that line—and thus within the President's exclusive control. Soon enough, the Court recognized that Humphrey's flunked even its own test. “[I]t is hard to dispute that the powers of the FTC,” Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

even “at the time of Humphrey's Executor ,” the Court explained in 1988, “would at the present time be considered `executive,' at least to some degree.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 690, n. 28.

In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, the Court reiterated Myers's rule that the President exercises “general administrative control of those executing the laws” and must be able to “remov[e] those for whom he can not continue to be responsible.” Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 492– 493 (quoting Myers, 272 U. S., at 117, 164); Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 214 (same). And the Court refused to extend Humphrey's to “new situation[s].” Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 220; see Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 483. At this point, all that is left of Humphrey's is its observation that an agency that “exercises no part of the executive power” need not fall within the rule of Presidential removal. 295 U. S., at 628. Pp. 447–450.

(iii) If anything more is left of Humphrey's, the Court overrules it. Humphrey's has for decades been a result in search of a rationale, and every relevant factor to stare decisis—the “quality” of the decision's reasoning, its “consistency” with the Court's other cases, the “workability” of its rule, and reliance interests, Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. 180, 203—counsels in favor of letting Humphrey's go. Slaughter relies on reliance. She argues that Congress has relied upon Humphrey's to create agencies that are “insulated from presidential control.” Brief for Respondent 15. But that is precisely the problem. Despite what Humphrey's may say, independent agencies are not “independent” in the sense that they are free of the President and thus responsive “only to the people of the United States.” 295 U. S., at 625. Placing the power to administer laws in officers who enjoy “freedom from Presidential oversight (and protection)” does not deliver us to a promised land of technocratic governance—it often results only in an “increased subservience to congressional direction.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 523 (plurality opinion). Pp. 450–453. (c) With these principles in mind, the FTC's for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers. In its present form, the FTC enforces and administers some 80 statutes covering almost every facet of the Nation's economy, and the tasks it undertakes are “the very essence of `execution' of the law.” Bowsher v. Synar , 478 U. S. 714, 733. The FTC has the power to promulgate substantive rules carrying the force of law, investigate businesses and enforce statutes through in-house adjudications, and file civil suits on behalf of the United States in federal court. The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive. Pp. 454–455. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

(d) Because the FTC's activities fall well within the heartland of executive power, the Court has no occasion today to define the bounds of what such power entails. Not all offices created by Congress necessarily come with executive power, see, e. g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 137–138 (per curiam ), and the Court has left open the possibility that some functions traditionally handled outside the Executive Branch may not be encompassed by Myers's general rule. One example the Court has given of such an entity is the Federal Reserve, to the extent that it follows in the tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8. And as the Government recognizes, the permissibility of tenure protections for non-Article III courts is not presented or briefed in this case. The Court leaves those questions for another day. All the Court does today is recognize what has been clear for a century—that those who fall within the President's “general administrative control” must be removable by the President at will. Myers, 272 U. S., at 135. Pp. 455–456. (e) Slaughter's counterarguments are rejected. She relies on Humphrey's and stare decisis, but she does not defend Humphrey's on its own terms. She does not argue that the FTC today occupies “no place in the executive department” or exercises “no part of the executive power.” 295 U. S., at 628. Her historical arguments regarding early multimember agencies fail because the members of these agencies, too, were removable by the President at will. Slaughter ultimately proposes that the Court police Congress's decisions in this area only for “reasonableness.” She argues that Congress may “reasonably” decide “that the President should be able to remove some duly appointed officers only for certain causes and through certain processes.” Brief for Respondent 25 (internal quotation marks omitted). Slaughter's supposed limiting principle is neither limiting nor much of a principle. On her view, Congress could commandeer the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, most (if not all) of the Department of Justice, and a number of other agencies besides. Indeed, if Slaughter were correct, then it is not clear why Congress would need to allow the President any say in firings at all. Slaughter's view is incompatible with our constitutional design. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people. Pp. 456–464.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Reversed and remanded.

Roberts , C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Alito , Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III–B. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 464. Sotomayor , J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan and Jackson, JJ., joined, post, p. 480.

Solicitor General Sauer argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Assistant Attorney General Shumate , Deputy Solicitor General Harris, Deputy Assistant Attorney General McArthur, Vivek Suri, Mark R. Freeman, Michael S. Raab , Daniel Aguilar , Laura E. Myron, and Alex Potapov.

Amit Agarwal argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Jared Davidson, Justin Florence , Julia L. Torti, Benjamin L. Berwick, Beau Tremitiere , Aaron Crowell, Gregory A. Clarick, David Kimball-Stanley, Laurence M. Schwartztol, Ephraim A. McDowell , and Joshua Revesz.*

by Keith Ellison, Attorney General of Minnesota, and Liz Kramer , Solicitor General, by Nicholas W. Brown, Attorney General of Washington, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Kris Mayes of Arizona, Rob Bonta of California, William Tong of Connecticut, Kathleen Jennings of Delaware, Brian L. Schwalb of the District of Columbia, Anne E. Lopez of Hawaii, Aaron M. Frey of Maine, Anthony G. Brown of Maryland, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, Dana Nessel of Michigan, Aaron D. Ford of Nevada, Matthew J. Platkin of New Jersey, Raúl Torrez of New Mexico, Letitia James of New York, Jeff Jackson of North Carolina, Dan Rayfeld of Oregon, Peter F. Neronha of Rhode Island, Charity R. Clark of Vermont, and Josh Kaul of Wisconsin; for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Matthew J. Ginsburg , Maneesh Sharma, and Darin M. Dalmat; for Bipartisan Former Chairs of the Federal Trade Commission by Trisha Anderson, Joseph Posimato, Katherine Van Dyck, and David Strauss; for the Constitutional Accountability Center by Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, and Brian R. Frazelle; for Independent Agency Board Members et al. by Catherine M. A. Carroll, Bradley Girard, Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Elena Goldstein, Skye L. Perryman, and Jon Greenbaum; for Issue One et al. by William M. Treanor; for the Open Markets Institute by Jamie Crooks; for Public Citizen by Nicolas A. Sansone , Allison M. Zieve , and Scott L. Nelson; for Public Knowledge by John Bergmayer; for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press by Bruce D. Brown and Lisa Zycherman; for TechFreedom by Corbin K. Barthold; for Thirteen Retired Federal Judges by Norman L. Eisen, Timothy J. Ford, and Ira Neil Richards; for Nicholas R. Bednar et al. by Brian A. Sutherland and Jessica Weisel; for Jane Manners by Katherine L. Pringle and Thomas P . Wolf; for Legal Historian Noah A. Rosenblum et al. by Gregory L. Diskant; for Gwynne Wilcox by Deepak Gupta, Gregory A. Beck, and Alisa C. Philo; for 40 National, State, and Local Consumer, Privacy and Open Markets Groups by F. Paul Bland, Seth E. Mermin, and David S. Nahmias; and for 207 Members of Congress by Jeffrey L. Fisher , Easha Anand, Brian H. Fletcher , and Pamela S. Karlan. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for Administrative and Constitutional Law Professors by Alan B. Morrison, pro se; for the American Antitrust Institute et al. by Deborah A. Elman and Randy Stutz; for the Bipartisan Former Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

(FERC) by Ari Peskoe; for the Campaign Legal Center et al. by Tara Malloy , Sejal Jhaveri, and Alexandra Copper; for the Cato Institute by Thomas A. Berry and Brent Skorup; for the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence by John C. Eastman and Alexander Ha-berbush; for Former Members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Eric Schnapper; for Former Members of Multimember Boards and Commissions by William J. Murphy , Aaron S. J. Zelinsky , and David A. Reiser; for Former Senior White House Lawyers et al. by Hampton Y . Dellinger , Harold Hongju Koh, and Sonia Mittal; for the Landmark Legal Foundation by Matthew C. Florys, Michael J. O'Neill, and Richard P . Hutchison; for the National Whistleblower Center by Stephen M. Kohn and Kayla Svihovec; for the Pacific Legal Foundation by Oliver J. Dunford, Aditya Dynar , and Michael Poon; for Professors of Administrative Law et al. by Samuel Estreicher, pro se; for Patrick J. Borchers et al. by Joseph M. Sellers and Richard A. Koffman; for Ariana Cortes et al. by Aaron Solem and Alyssa Hazelwood; for Jed Handelsman Shuger-man by Richard F. Griffin, Jr., and Faaris Akremi; for Todd Harper et al. by Vincent Levy; for Cathy Harris by Neal Kumar Katyal, Nathaniel A. G. Zelinsky, Samantha Bateman, James I. Pearce, Michael Kator , Kerrie Diane Riggs, Jeremy D. Wright, and Linda Marie Correia; for Andrea Scoseria Katz et al. by Christopher K. Connolly and Thomas A. Lloyd; for Maud Maron by Alan Gura; for Michael T. Morley, pro se; for Victoria Nourse et al. by Clifford M. Sloan and Gary DiBianco; for Sen. Eric Schmitt by Thomas R. McCarthy , J. Michael Connolly , and Tiffany H. Bates; and for Ilan Wurman, pro se.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

One hundred years ago, this Court honored the Convention's choice in the seminal case of Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926). There, we held that the Constitution “grants to the President” the “general administrative control of those executing the laws, including the power of appointment and removal of executive officers.” Id., at 163–164. Because no one could “execute the laws” “alone and unaided,” Chief Justice Taft explained for the Court, the President must be permitted to “select those who . . . act for him” and “remov[e] those for whom he can not continue to be responsible.” Id., at 117. “[T]o hold otherwise would make it impossible for the President” to fulfill his constitutional obligation “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Id., at 164.

Today we confront one of several regulatory agencies that deviate from this model of Presidential supervision—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Since its creation in 1914, the FTC has accumulated vast rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudicatory powers under more than 80 statutes. Not only does it promulgate rules that carry the force of law, but it also enforces those rules against private parties, collecting civil penalties in the billions of dollars. Its powers, however, do not belong to the President or his appointees alone; they instead belong to five Commissioners, each of whom serves for seven years and may be removed by the President only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 38 Stat. 718, 15 U. S. C. § 41.

We hold that such protection from removal is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

When President Trump began his second term in January 2025, the FTC was led by two Republicans and three Demo-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

That split came to an abrupt end in March, when President Trump fred the two remaining Democratic Commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. He did not assert that they were “ineffcien[t],” “neglect[ed]” their “dut[ies],” or committed “malfeasance in office,” as the statute required. Ibid. He instead told them that their “continued service on the FTC [was] inconsistent with [his] Administration's priorities” and that they were removed from office “pursuant to [his] authority under Article II of the Constitution.” App. 28.

Slaughter promptly filed suit against the President and other executive officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to restore her to office. 1 She alleged that her removal was ultra vires, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated the Constitution.

The District Court agreed, granting Slaughter's motion for summary judgment. 791 F. Supp. 3d 1 (DC 2025). It acknowledged that Myers generally permits the President to remove “executive officers” at will, as part of his “general administrative control of those executing the laws.” 791 F. Supp. 3d, at 11 (quoting Myers, 272 U. S., at 164). But it considered itself bound by Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935). That case, the District Court

A divided Court of Appeals denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. 2025 WL 2551247 (CADC, Sept. 2, 2025) (per curiam ). The panel held that the Government has “no prospect of success on appeal,” as this very issue had been settled by Humphrey's Executor . 2025 WL 2551247, *3. Judge Rao dissented, explaining that Humphrey's Executor does not license a “headless fourth branch” of independent agencies exercising “considerable executive power.” 2025 WL 2551247, *13 (quoting Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. 922, 923 (2025)).

We stayed the District Court's order and granted certiorari before judgment. 606 U. S. 1051 (2025).

A

The Constitution vests “[t]he executive Power” in a “President of the United States of America” and instructs that he “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, §§ 1, 3. To vest “the whole executive power” in just one person was not to suggest that he could execute the laws alone and unaided. The Federalist No. 47, at 303 (J. Madi-son). But it was to establish a hierarchy—a “Chief Magistrate” with whom the buck stops, and below him various “assistants or deputies” who “derive their offices from his appointment” and remain “subject to his superintendence.” Id., No. 72, at 436 (A. Hamilton). To remain accountable to the President, those officers must be removable by the

President. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The idea that one President would be in charge was by no means a foregone conclusion in 1787. Just ten years earlier, the colonists had “thrown off the Yoke” of King George III and his colonial governors, 5 Papers of John Adams 26 (R. Taylor ed. 1983) (S. Adams), who had laid a “[f]oundation sufficient on which to erect a Tyranny,” 1 J. Adams, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams 260 (L. Butterfeld ed. 1961). Now citizens, they had no intention of reestablishing “the kingly office” by another name. 1 Papers of Thomas Jefferson 337 (J. Boyd ed. 1950). Thus the furry of state constitutions that followed the Declaration of Independence “made of the gubernatorial magistrate a new kind of creature, a very pale refection indeed of his regal ancestor.” G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787, p. 136 (1998) (Wood); see also J. Rakove, Original Meanings 250–252 (1996). Almost every State had but a nominal Governor, who could act only with his council's consent. These early chief executives were “little more than chairmen of their executive boards.” Wood 138.

The Framers chose to depart from this model, for they had seen its flaws up close. Common was the complaint that the States' feeble and divided executives left no “effectual check” for “the instability & encroachments” of legislatures. See 2 Farrand's Records 35 (J. Madison). For “fear” of “monarchical . . . power,” William Livingston lamented, the States “improvidently” devised executives “too weak & inef-fcatious to operate with proper energy & vigour.” 5 Papers of William Livingston 56–57 (C. Prince, M. Lustig, D. Vor-hees, & R. Weiss eds. 1988).

The Convention was determined not to make the same mistake. See Wood 467. So when delegates objected to “unity in the Executive magistracy” as “the foetus of monarchy,” 1 Farrand's Records 66 (E. Randolph), others could soundly reply that the concern was quite backward. “[I]n-stead of being the fetus of Monarchy,” they explained, Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

That the Constitution forged a new path was not hidden from those who ratified it. Hamilton frankly conceded that only two States thus far “have intrusted the executive authority wholly to single men,” The Federalist No. 70, at 424, anticipating Roger Sherman's critique of the Constitution that every other government has “a Council of advice, without which the first magistrate could not act,” 1 Farrand's Records 97. To Hamilton, however, that was the point. Unlike most States, the Federal Government would have “a vigorous executive” who could act with “secrecy . . . and dispatch”—and would not be able to “conceal [his] faults” behind a council. The Federalist No. 70, at 423–424, 427. “[A] plurality in the executive,” Hamilton argued, “tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.” Id., at 427. “It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall.” Id., at 428. If the executive power were not placed in a “single hand,” then “the people” would be “deprive[d] . . . of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power”—“the restraints of public opinion” and the “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust.” Id., at 424, 428–429.

In opting for one President, however, the Framers did not opt for the President to work alone. They knew (as our first Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

These officers were to serve as envoys of the President, not his equals. Their very purpose, after all, was to assist him “to discharge his arduous employment,” not theirs. 4 Debates on the Constitution 109 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1891) (J. Iredell) (emphasis added). As such, the Government's “ministers” were required to “exercise their functions in subordination to the Executive,” whether their tasks were big or small. 2 Farrand's Records 54 (G. Morris). Hamilton made the same point. “The persons . . . to whose immediate management” the President's powers “are committed ought to be considered as the assistants or deputies of the Chief Magistrate, and on this account they ought to derive their offices from his appointment, at least from his nomination, and ought to be subject to his superintendence.” The Federalist No. 72, at 436. In so structuring the Government, the Convention “rejected a committee-style Executive Branch in favor of a unitary and accountable President, standing under law, yet over” his department heads. A. Amar, Some Opinions on the Opinion Clause, 82 Va. L. Rev. 647 (1996). It helped in reaching that conclusion, of course, that everyone at the Convention knew who that President would be—the Convention's presiding officer, George Washington. See J. Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation: 1783– 1793, pp. 133–134 (1970). 2

For another, the power to remove at will was a necessary corollary of the Constitution's design. The “unity” of the Executive Branch would be “destroyed,” Hamilton wrote, if it were vested “ostensibly in one man, subject in whole or in part to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counselors to him.” Id., No. 70, at 424. But that is precisely what would occur if the President's so-called assistants

tionary War, he had complained about the “vital and inherent Principle of Delay . . . in transacting Business” through the Continental Congress's multimember executive committees, 3 Writings of George Washington 12 (W. Ford ed. 1889), which he felt led to “unpunishable Neglect of Duty,” id., at 34. Even in peacetime, he saw the Confederation Congress as “not only slow, debilitated, and liable to be thwarted by every breath, but . . . defective in that secrecy, which for the accomplishment of many of the most important national purposes is indispensably necessary.” 29 id., at 153 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1939). It is little wonder then, that the Convention created a powerful Presidency, one ft for Washington. As South Carolina delegate Pierce Butler put it, the Convention's members “cast their eyes towards General Washington as President; and shaped their Ideas of the Powers to be given to a President, by their opinions of his Virtue.” 3 Farrand's Records 301–302. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

2

This aspect of the President's role was confirmed in the Constitution's first year—and in the years that followed. The result was a “regular course of practice” that “liquidate[d] & settle[d]” the President's power of removal, 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908), a construction followed by every branch of “the Genl. Govt, . . . thro all the vicissitudes of Party,” 9 id., at 333 (1910). See also The Federalist No. 37, at 228–229 (J. Madison).

That practice began in the First Congress. When it first met in 1789, one of its first and most pressing tasks was to establish the first executive departments—and with them the first “Heads of Departments.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. In doing so, it debated how those officers should be removed. Some felt that the Senate had to consent to all removals, as one of the two entities that “appoint[ed]” the official in the first place. 1 Annals of Cong. 472–473 (Rep. Gerry). Others argued that the Constitution was silent on the question, giving Congress the “right” to select whether an officer may be removed, and if so by whom—“the President, the President and Senate, or the Legislature, or any other person Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

By this point, the arguments made by the third group will sound familiar. Madison led the charge. “I conceive that if any power whatsoever is in its nature Executive,” and thus vested in the President, “it is the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws.” Ibid. And if that is so, he explained, then the “power of removal from office” must follow. Id., at 499. For it is only with that power that “the chain of dependence [can] be preserved”—“the lowest officers, the middle grade, and the highest” made to “depend, as they ought, on the President, and the President on the community.” Ibid. Others agreed. Some focused on text. “[T]he power of removal [is] an Executive power,” Representative George Clymer said, “and as such belong[s] to the President alone, by the express words of the Constitution.” Id., at 382. Others focused on structure. “The Constitution places all Executive power in the hands of the President,” Representative Fisher Ames explained, “and could he personally execute all the laws, there would be no occasion for establishing auxiliaries.” Id., at 474. “But in order that he may be responsible to his country,” he continued, “he must have a choice in selecting his assistants, a control over them, with power to remove them when he finds the qualifications which induced their appointment cease to exist.” Ibid.

The third group emerged victorious. They successfully convinced the House of Representatives to delete a clause in the draft bill that said that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs was “to be removable by the President,” for such language would “ha[ve] the appearance of conferring the power upon him” when in fact it was his all along. Id., at 505, 507 (Rep. Benson). What they favored instead—and what they got— Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Congress's confirmation of the President's power quickly took hold—and even gained fame as “the Decision of 1789.” “After very long debates,” Madison wrote to Jefferson, Congress had endorsed the view that “the Executive function of removal” was “vested in the President,” a decision “most consonant to the text of the Constitution” and “to the requisite responsibility and harmony in the Executive Department.” 16 Documentary History of the First Federal Congress 893 (C. Bickford, K. Bowling, H. Veit, & W. diGiaco-mantonio eds. 2004). Even those who opposed Congress's decision recognized that the decision had been made. Take Representative Richard Bland Lee, who had argued that the question of who may remove officers was up to “[t]he Legislature,” as it could “create and establish offices” as it saw ft. 1 Annals of Cong. 525. After the bills had been enacted, Lee wrote that it “was determined in the affirmative” that the President “had, or ought to have, from a fair Construction of the constitution,” the power to remove his own appointees. 16 Documentary History of the First Federal Congress, at 866–867. And even those far removed from the debates saw the issue as settled, including Chief Justice Marshall, see 5 J. Marshall, The Life of George Washington 199–200 (1807) (Marshall) (the decision was “a full expression of the sense of the legislature”), Chancellor Kent, see 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 289–290 (1826) (the Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Early Presidents of all persuasions, too, hewed to the Decision of 1789. Washington saw it as his “indispensable duty” to remove officers who flailed to live up to his expectations. 36 Writings of George Washington 216 (1941). His Cabinet agreed, taking the stance that the ability to “remove from office” was an “essential attribute of Executive power.” 20 Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series 355, 357, n. 2 (D. Hoth & W. Ferraro eds. 2019). The first President Adams said the same. See 20 Papers of John Adams 150– 151 (S. Georgini et al. eds. 2020) (noting his support for “the President['s] Power of Removal, according to the Constitution”). So did Jefferson. See 4 Papers of Thomas Jefferson, at 281 (the power to “remov[e] executive officers [is] inherent in [the] Executive”). So did Madison. See 2 Papers of James Madison 192 (D. Mattern, J. Stagg, M. Johnson, & A. Colony eds. 2013) (one of the “[c]onstitutional attributes of the Executive” is to determine “[t]he tenure of the office” of subordinates). So did Monroe, along with the second President Adams. 7 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 424–425 (C. Adams ed. 1875) (citing Monroe for the view that “the tenure of all subordinate Executive offices” is “necessarily the pleasure of the chief by whom they were commissioned,” and agreeing with “the principle established by Mr. Monroe”).

And so did Jackson—much to Congress's dismay. Unlike his predecessors, who (except for Jefferson) utilized their removal power sparingly, Jackson fred hundreds “of subordinates for personal and partisan reasons.” L. White, The Jacksonians: A Study in Administrative History, 1829–1861, p. 33 (1954) (White); see also id., at 307–308. But even Jackson's most vehement critics acknowledged that he had the Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

“[S]ince the practice has become a settled practice, since every Administration has indulged in it, and since it must now be considered, as the legal construction of the Constitution, . . . it follows . . . that this power, thus legally vested in the President, must be exercised by him as independently of our control as any other power that is to be exercised by him under the Constitution.” Cong. Globe, 31st Cong., 1st Sess., 1126 (1850).

B

What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms—the President may remove his subordinates at will.

1

Twice in the 19th century, we reaffirmed what the First Congress had held. The text of the Constitution “is silent with respect to the power of removal from office,” we noted in our first case on the subject. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 258 (1839). But “it was very early adopted, as the practical construction of the Constitution,” that the power “to remove, where the tenure of the office was not fixed by the Constitution,” was “vested in the President alone.” Id., at 259. “And such would appear to have been the legislative construction of the Constitution” too, given “the organization of the three great departments” “in the year 1789.” Ibid. Our second case was of a piece. “[T]he decision of Congress in 1789, and the universal practice of the Government under Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Our landmark decision, however, came 100 years ago in Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52. That case arose from an unlikely source—a dispute over management of the post office in Portland, Oregon. See id., at 106. Under an 1876 statute, the President had to receive the “advice and consent of the Senate” not only to appoint postmasters but also to remove them. § 6, 19 Stat. 80. For reasons that are now lost to history, President Wilson fred Portland's postmaster, Frank Myers, and did so without the Senate's consent. 272 U. S., at 106–107. Myers sued for backpay. See id., at 106.

In a scholarly opinion, Chief Justice Taft rejected Myers's suit and reaffirmed the President's power to fire his subordinates at will. That power arose, he wrote for the Court, from the Constitution's text, history, and structure, just as the First Congress had held in 1789. See id., at 136. “The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws,” Chief Justice Taft explained. Id., at 117. “As he is charged specifically to take care that [the laws] be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication,” he continued, “was that as part of his executive power” he must be able to “remov[e] those for whom he can not continue to be responsible.” Ibid. “Mr. Madison and his associates” made this same point, the Chief Justice noted, and they “dwelt at length upon the necessity there was for construing Article II to give the President the sole power of removal in his responsibility for the conduct of the executive branch.” Ibid.

But Chief Justice Taft emphasized that it was not just the First Congress that had come to this conclusion. The First Congress supplied “a precedent upon which many future laws . . . would be based”—and if it had erred, the next Congresses would have “dissent[ed] and depart[ed]” from its view. Id., at 136. Quite the opposite occurred, the Chief Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

In the wake of the Civil War, Chief Justice Taft noted, Congress sought to “reverse this constitutional construction”—but in the end only confirmed it. Id., at 164. “This reversal grew out of the serious political difference” between President Johnson—a Jacksonian Democrat—and congressional Republicans, who boasted “a two-thirds majority” in both Houses of Congress. Id., at 164–165. Over Johnson's veto, Congress sought to “curtail the then acknowledged powers of the President” with the Tenure of Office Act, which required him to receive the Senate's consent before firing most officers. Id., at 165–166.

“[T]he injury and invalidity” of the law was “immediately recognized by the Executive and objected to”—and not just by Johnson. Id., at 167. “General Grant, succeeding Mr. Johnson in the Presidency”—and no fan of Johnson or his program—“earnestly recommended in his first message the total repeal” of the law. Id., at 167–168. “What faith can an Executive put in officials forced upon him?” Grant asked. Id., at 168. “How will such officials be likely to serve an Administration which they know does not trust them?” Ibid. Despite Grant's efforts, “[t]he feeling growing out of the controversy with President Johnson retained the act on the statute book”—and led to one other such law, the one for postmasters at issue in that very case—“until 1887,” when the Tenure in Office Act was repealed. Ibid.

What these events revealed, Chief Justice Taft wrote, was not Presidential “acquiescence” but resistance, a consistent rejection of “the validity of such legislation” as incompatible with “the legislative action of 1789.” Id., at 172–173. At issue in Myers, then, as the Chief Justice saw it, was whether Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

2

While Myers was perhaps our best word on the subject, it was not our last.

a

Just nine years after Myers, we handed down Humphrey's Executor, 295 U. S. 602. The case arose out of President Roosevelt's decision to fire one of President Hoover's appointees to the Federal Trade Commission, William Humphrey, two years into Humphrey's seven-year term. Humphrey lauded Hoover “as the foremost figure of the world,” a man who fought back against “the demagogue, the fanatic, the reformer and the fool.” Washington, D. C., Evening Star, Mar. 11, 1932, p. D11, col. 8. On the Commission, Humphrey sought to do the same. He often spoke to the press, and described the FTC variously as “a publicity bureau” used “to spread Socialistic propaganda,” Boston Globe, Dec. 14, 1926, p. 5, cols. 3–4, a “bureaucracy gone insane,” N. Y . Times, Feb. 3, 1929, p. 19, col. 1, and “an instrument of oppression and disturbance and injury,” Orlando Evening Star, Jan. 7, 1931, p. 3, col. 3. Roosevelt saw matters differently, and requested Humphrey's resignation. Humphrey refused, so Roosevelt fred him in a one-line letter that did not specify a cause for his removal—seemingly contrary to a statute permitting removal of Commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” § 1, 38 Stat. 718. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

On a day that New Dealers would dub “Black Monday,” the Court ruled unanimously against the President—as it did in two other cases decided that same day, A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495 (1935), and Lou-isville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U. S. 555 (1935). See A. Schlesinger, The Politics of Upheaval 279– 290 (1960). Schechter and Radford were quite a blow to the President, invalidating aspects of his signature legislation. Schechter found an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power in a statute that gave the President free rein to prescribe “standards of fair competition” businesses were obliged to follow. 295 U. S., at 534, 542. And Radford found a violation of the Takings Clause in a statute that allowed farmers who defaulted on their mortgages to retain possession of their property for years on end. 295 U. S., at 575–576, 601–602.

Having to contend with Myers, Humphrey's said far less. Justice Sutherland, writing for the Court, started by reaf-firming that the President possesses “the exclusive and illimitable power” to remove “all purely executive officers,” just as Myers held. 295 U. S., at 627–628. He then pivoted. There are some presidentially appointed officials, he explained, who may perform “executive function[s]” but exercise “no part of the executive power.” Id., at 628. And for those officials, “the decision in the Myers case cannot be accepted as controlling.” Id., at 627.

The Court held that William Humphrey was one such off-cial. That was because the FTC's duties were very limited—they were “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” Id., at 624. When courts requested the FTC's help as a “master in chancery” to recommend appropriate remedies in antitrust litigation, for instance, it acted solely as a judicial aid. Id., at 628. When Congress requested the FTC's help to “mak[e] Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

b

From the start, Humphrey's was tethered to a highly circumscribed and almost fictional view of the FTC's role. Humphrey's by its terms applied only to agencies that occupy “no place in the executive department,” are “independent of executive authority,” and exercise “no part of the executive power.” Id., at 625, 628. Indeed, Justice Suther-land took pains to emphasize that “the character of the of-fice”—executive or nonexecutive—would determine the result of future cases, and to reiterate that the Court's decision was limited “to officers of the kind here under consideration.” Id., at 631–632.

In later cases, although Humphrey's announced dividing line remained intact, more and more functions, we concluded, in fact fell on the executive side of that line—and thus within the President's exclusive control. Where Humphrey's suggested that the power to enforce the law against particular parties could be merely “quasi-judicial,” or “in aid” of federal courts, see id., at 628, we held the opposite. “A lawsuit is the ultimate remedy for a breach of the law,” we explained in 1976, “and it is to the President, and not to the Congress, that the Constitution entrusts the responsibility to `take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' ” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 138 (per curiam ) (quoting Art. II, § 3). Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Soon enough, we recognized that Humphrey's flunked even its own test. “[I]t is hard to dispute that the powers of the FTC,” even “at the time of Humphrey's Executor ,” we explained in 1988, “would at the present time be considered `executive,' at least to some degree.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 690, n. 28. Not one for understatement, Justice Scalia observed in dissent that the Court had “swept” Humphrey's “into the dustbin of repudiated constitutional principles.” 487 U. S., at 725. The Court put the matter more delicately, but no less definitively. “We undoubtedly did rely on the terms `quasi-legislative' and `quasi-judicial' ” in Humphrey's, the Court noted, “but our present considered view is that” the constitutional question “cannot be made to turn on” such “rigid categories,” at least for inferior officers. 487 U. S., at 689. Contra, post, at 485 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (asserting that Morrison v. Olson in fact “applied and expanded Humphrey's”).

Fast forward another few decades, and Humphrey's premises had been further undermined. In two cases, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477 (2010), and Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197 (2020), we again considered the permissibility of restrictions on the President's power of removal. In both cases, we reiterated My-ers's rule that the President exercises “general administra-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Humphrey's framework, in short, has not withstood the test of time. While Humphrey's was surely right to focus on “the character of the office” at issue, 295 U. S., at 631, and surely right to say that “purely executive” powers must be controlled by the President, id., at 632, we long ago abandoned the notion that there are some powers that are only partly executive. Forty years have now passed, in fact, since we recognized that the FTC exercises executive power—and did so even in 1935, when Humphrey's was decided. See Morrison, 487 U. S., at 690, n. 28; id., at 724–725 (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 216, n. 2. And more than 200 years have passed since we recognized that the Constitution “vests the whole executive power in the President” alone. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 819 (1824) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court).

At this point, all that is left of Humphrey's is its observation that an agency that “exercises no part of the executive power” need not fall within the rule of Presidential removal. 295 U. S., at 628; see Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

c

If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it. Humphrey's has for decades been a result in search of a rationale. As we have often said, stare decisis is not an “inexorable command,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991), and is at its weakest in constitutional cases, where only we may readily fx our own mistakes, Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997). Our precedents about precedent teach that a number of factors are relevant. Here, every factor—the “quality” of the decision's reasoning, its “consistency” with our other cases, the “workability” of its rule, and the interests of those who have “reli[ed]” on it, Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. 180, 203 (2019)—counsels in favor of letting Humphrey's go.

Humphrey's has been difficult to make sense of from the start. “[O]nly by blind feats of definition” could the Court transform powers that are quintessentially executive—investigative and prosecutorial alike—into nonexecutive “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions. P. Strauss, The Place of Agencies in Government, 84 Colum. L. Rev. 573, 625 (1984). As Justice Jackson memorably put it, Humphrey's “retreat to the qualifying `quasi' is implicit with confession that all recognized classifications have broken down, and `quasi' is a smooth cover which we draw over our confusion as we might use a counterpane to conceal a disordered bed.” Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

For that reason, Humphrey's is now far out of step with our cases, which have all but limited it to its facts. See supra, at 447–448. We long ago retreated from Humphrey's. We applied it only once, in 1958, to a solely adjudi-catory body that dealt with a limited category of claims for compensation from those imprisoned or interned in the Second World War. Wiener v. United States, 357 U. S. 349, 355– 356. And even then, our constitutional analysis spanned only one brisk paragraph, as the case focused on the question whether the statute limited the President's power at all. See id., at 356. Since then, we have undermined Humphrey's premises at every turn. To persist in Humphrey's would require us to depart from almost every case on the subject we have decided since.

Little surprise, then, that no one knows how to apply Humphrey's in practice. Does it protect all multimember agencies? See Wilcox v. Trump, 775 F. Supp. 3d 215, 234 (DC 2025). Or only those that are balanced along partisan lines? See Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB , 151 F. 4th 761, 777–778 (CA5 2025). Those that wield some executive power, but not a lot? See Consumers' Research v. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm'n, 98 F. 4th 646, 652 (CA5 2024) (Oldham, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). Or only those that do not wield the President's “conclusive and preclusive” powers? See Brief for Respondent 25–28. Or perhaps it is only those that are “materially indistinguishable from the 1935 FTC”? See Harris v. Bes-sent, 2025 WL 980278, *15 (CADC 2025) (Walker, J., concurring). With its indeterminacy and unpredictability, Humphrey's “has undermined the very `rule of law' values that stare decisis exists to secure.” Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U. S. 369, 411 (2024) (quoting Michi-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

All that is left is reliance, upon which Slaughter (and the dissent) rely. Slaughter argues that Congress has relied upon Humphrey's to create agencies that are “insulated from presidential control.” Brief for Respondent 15; see also post, at 512–518 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting). That is precisely the problem. Despite what Humphrey's may say, independent agencies are not “independent” in the sense that they are free of the President and thus responsive “only to the people of the United States.” 295 U. S., at 625. Independent agencies are insulated “from the President,” “not from politics.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U. S. 502, 523 (2009) (plurality opinion). “As a practical matter, successful insulation of administration from the President—even if accomplished in the name of `independence'—will tend to enhance Congress's own authority over the insulated activities.” E. Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2271, n. 93 (2001). Placing the power to administer laws in officers who enjoy “freedom from Presidential oversight (and protection),” in other words, does not deliver us to a promised land of technocratic governance—it often results only in an “increased subservience to congressional direction.” Fox Television, 556 U. S., at 523 (plurality opinion). Congress may well have relied on Humphrey's in taking more power for itself, but that is hardly one of the “legitimate” reliance interests that our precedents contemplate. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. 162, 186 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); cf. NLRB v. Noel Canning , 573 U. S. 513, 571–572 (2014) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). No branch may rely on adverse possession to claim power that the Constitution vests elsewhere.3

independent.” Post, at 514–515 (internal quotation marks omitted). To the extent that consideration is relevant, it is relevant only in the context of severability. In our prior cases, “when confronting a constitutional flaw in a statute” like the one before us, we have sought to limit “the solution to the problem,” severing the invalid removal provision “while leaving the remainder intact.” Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 508 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 233–238 (2020) (opinion of Roberts, C. J., joined by Alito and Kavanaugh, JJ.) (deeming a removal provision severable); id., at 296– 297 (Kagan, J., joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., concurring in judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part) (same). If the dissent now disagrees with that approach, and believes that Congress generally “would have preferred no [agency] at all to [an agency] whose members are removable at will,” Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 509, it is free to urge as much in a case in which the severabil-ity question is before us. In any event, the solution to “an Executive Branch that Congress never dreamed of establishing,” post, at 517 (Soto-mayor, J., dissenting), is not a headless fourth branch that the Framers never dreamed of establishing. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

With these principles in mind, this is not a close case. The FTC's for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers. In its present form, the FTC enforces and administers some 80 statutes, which cover almost every facet of our Nation's economy. The tasks it undertakes are “the very essence of `execution' of the law”—precisely the President's constitutional role. Bowsher , 478 U. S., at 733.

First, the FTC has the power to promulgate substantive rules that carry the force of law. In the consumer-protection realm, for instance, the FTC is tasked with giving content to the startlingly abstract idea of “acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive.” 15 U. S. C. § 57a(a)(1)(B). In other areas, it must, for example, determine what “documentary material and information” one company must provide when it wishes to acquire another, § 18a(d), decide when and how websites must seek “verifiable parental consent” when their services collect children's personal information, § 6502(b), and “prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of United States citizens” rules barring the use of any “manipulative” technique in the sale of gasoline, 42 U. S. C. § 17301. The power to flesh out such statutory regimes—and to do so through discretionary actions, largely outside the remit of courts—is executive through and through. Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 218–220.

Second, the FTC not only investigates businesses to ensure they comply with its statutes and rules, 15 U. S. C. §§ 43, 46(a), 49, but enforces those statutes and rules through in-house adjudications. Indeed, it may even place the onus on a private party to comply with its orders—on pain of monetary penalties—before the case reaches the courts. See § 45(g)(2). This power, too, is executive. Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 219 (discussing the ability to “unilaterally issue final decisions” in “administrative adjudications”). Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power, and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive, in whom such power is vested. It follows, then, that Slaughter served as the President's subordinate at the FTC—and that the President was entitled to cut her tenure short.

Because the FTC's activities fall well within the heartland of executive power, we have no occasion today to define the bounds of what such power entails. As our precedents recognize, not all offices created by Congress necessarily come with executive or even sovereign power attached. See, e. g., Buckley, 424 U. S., at 137–138 (contrasting the “discretionary

Relatedly, we have left open the possibility that some functions traditionally handled outside the Executive Branch may not be encompassed by Myers's general rule. Indeed, Myers itself placed “the greatest weight” on the early Congresses' (and early Presidents') “contemporaneous legislative exposition” of the Executive's constitutional role. 272 U. S., at 174–175. And one example we have given of an entity that may have such a unique role is the Federal Reserve, to the extent that it follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States—both of which influenced monetary policy and neither of which were subject to plenary Presidential control. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8. Our prior cases do not necessarily implicate the constitutionality of such arrangements. Our opinion today should not be read to do so either.

Nor do we determine the fate of officials not before us. In particular, as the Solicitor General recognized at argument, the permissibility of tenure protections for the judges of “non-Article III courts,” such as the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims, is not “presented” or “briefed” in this case and poses a “different set of questions.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 15, 28. We leave those questions for another day. All we do today is recognize what has been clear for a century—that those who fall within the President's “general administrative control” must be removable by the President at will. Myers, 272 U. S., at 135.

Although she disagrees with our conclusion, Slaughter at least accepts many of our premises. She agrees, for in-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The dissent, on the other hand, sweeps the chess pieces off the board, rejecting not only Free Enterprise Fund and Seila Law but Myers and the Decision of 1789 as well. On its view, “there is no evidence that those who shaped or rati-fed the Constitution adopted the . . . general rule of at-will removal,” post, at 492—no matter the view expressed by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton in the first years of the Republic; no matter the practice of the First Congress and all our early Presidents; and no matter the Convention's insistence upon “[u]nity in the Executive,” 1 Farrand's Records 66 (J. Wilson).

To support its own position, the dissent relies on two passing comments in The Federalist. See post, at 494–495. Neither one helps. In Federalist No. 39, Madison noted that the “tenure” of “ministerial offices . . . will be a subject of legal regulation,” The Federalist No. 39, at 242, but it beggars belief to suggest that he intended so obliquely to permit Congress to hem in the President—it is far more likely that he intended only to endorse “regulation” of “tenure” in the sense of a limited term for executive officers, subject to Presidential removal in the interim. 5 And in Federalist No. 77,

We certainly see no reason why it should take precedence over the Decision of 1789. When it comes to those debates, the dissent has little to offer, beyond its efforts to limit the decision's scope. Says the dissent: “The House in 1789 did not address whether Congress could place any limits on the President's power to remove,” for it debated only whether the President had such a power “ at all.” Post, at 497–498. The two, however, are one and the same. In holding that the President has the power to remove his subordinates “without an express grant from Congress,” post, at 499 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.), Congress held that “the power of removal”

U. S., at 500, n. 6 (quoting 1 Annals of Cong. 612 (1789)); Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 227, n. 10 (same). Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

That is why no one at the time saw the First Congress as having endorsed merely a “default” “Presidential removal power” (if such a thing is not a contradiction in terms). Post, at 492, 500 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.). Madison, in fact, said just the opposite. Because “the Executive power” vested in the President includes the power “to remov[e] . . . from office,” he explained, “the Legislature has no right to diminish or modify” that power. 1 Annals of Cong. 463. Chief Justice Marshall agreed, explaining that the Decision of 1789 viewed the President's “power of removal” as “fixed in the constitution” and thus free from “legislative instability.” 5 Marshall 200. The same was true for Justice Story, who said that the decision “expressed the sense of the legislature, that the power of removal by the executive [of principal officers] could not be abridged by the legislature.” 3 Story § 1531, at 390, n. 1. 6

to legislative delegation.” Id., § 1531, at 390, n. 1. There is no shame in disagreeing with Story's appraisal of the Decision of 1789, but that is the reality of the dissent's position. 7 Quoting a letter from Hamilton in which he described the Commissioners as “ `distinct and Independant Officers,' ” the dissent infers that they must not have been removable by the President. Post, at 504 (quoting 16 Papers of Alexander Hamilton 145 (H. Syrett ed. 1972)). Hamilton, however, said only that the Commissioners were “distinct and Inde-pendant” from “ [t]he Treasury”—not the President. Id., at 145 (emphasis added).

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

With no support in the founding era as a whole, the dissent opts to skip ahead a century or two. 8 See post, at 489– 490. “Today,” the dissent notes, “dozens of agencies are headed by commissioners or board members removable only for cause,” and “this longstanding practice” (it contends) “should be entitled to significant weight.” Ibid. We have never endorsed such a practice-makes-perfect theory of congressional power, and in fact rejected it in INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919 (1983). At issue in Chadha were the nearly 300 legislative vetoes adopted by the political branches over the course of 50 years—with more and more enacted each year. See id., at 944–945. As we saw matters, however, the popularity of the congressional veto only “sharpened” our review. Id., at 944. Such “ `political invention[s]' ” must remain subject to “the demands of the Constitution,” we said, lest the political branches amend by agreement “integral parts of the constitutional design.” Id., at 945–946. We say the same today.

9 The dissent also invokes

Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), but

that case has nothing to do with this one. It is true that Chief Justice Marshall held (as the dissent puts it) that “an office[r] with a 5-year fixed-term tenure was `not removable at the will of the executive,' ” post, at 506 (quoting Marbury , 1 Cranch, at 162), but the dissent ignores the fact that the “officer” in question was a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Such justices do not exercise executive power. They instead exercise the judicial power of the District, just as territorial judges exercise the judicial power of their respective territories. See Sere v. Pitot, 6 Cranch 332, 336–337 (1810) (Marshall, C. J., for the Court); American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 545–546 (1828) (same); see also Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, 12 Pet. 524, 619 (1838). The fact that Congress may prohibit the President from firing the District's judges (who do not exercise his power) says nothing about whether Congress may prohibit the President from firing his subordinates (who do). Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall must have thought as much, for he felt free to write just four years after Marbury that “the power of removal by the president . . . was by fair construction, fixed in the constitution,” as determined by the Decision of 1789. 5 Marshall 200.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

When it comes to its own proposal for how precisely Humphrey's should work in practice, the dissent says very little. Slaughter, for her part, is left with the vague argument that we should police Congress's decisions for “reasonableness.” “[I]f Congress reasonably decides that the President should be able to remove some duly appointed officers only for certain causes and through certain processes,” she argues, the courts should respect that decision, and require that the President “discharge his obligations under the Take Care Clause by going through those processes when warranted.” Brief for Respondent 25 (internal quotation marks omitted).

That supposed limiting principle is neither limiting nor much of a principle. On Slaughter's view (and presumably the dissent's), Congress could commandeer the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, most (if not at all) of the Department of Justice, and a number of other agencies besides. Indeed, it is not clear to us why Congress would need to allow the President any say in firings. If it is so “critical” for an agency “to have independence and to act with impartiality free from the suspicion of partisan direction,” id., at 22 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted), then why should the President have a role at all? Certainly those legislators who disagreed with the Decision of 1789 were happy to leave him out. See 1 Annals of Cong. 521 (Rep. Sedgwick) (arguing that Congress may vest the removal power in “the President, the President and Senate, Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The answer, then as now, is that these officers exercise the President's power, not their own, and thus must be responsible to him. We do not allow intrusions on Article I nor on Article III. See INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919; Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. 462 (2011). We see no reason to allow intrusions on Article II either.

* * *

Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President. That President is not all powerful—not by any means. See, e. g., Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2 (1866); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U. S. 579 (1952); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974). But he is not impotent either. He and he alone is vested with “[t]he executive Power” of the United States. Art. II, § 1, cl. 1.

To “discharg[e] the duties of his trust,” the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. 30 Writings of George Washington, at 334. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.

The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Gorsuch, concurring.

To fulfill his constitutional duty to ensure the laws are faithfully executed, the Court holds, the President must have the ability to remove principal officers who exercise execu-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

But neither can I ignore the implications that follow. Today, independent agencies do not just exercise executive law-enforcement powers. Congress has also delegated to them vast legislative and judicial powers, effectively allowing these agencies to make laws and decide disputes under them. And, after today's decision, the President can effectively exercise all those powers too.

It's a development that raises important questions, not least these: Would Congress have delegated so much power, including legislative and judicial power, to independent agencies had it known that the President would come to control them? How will Congress respond now—if realistically it can? And what, if anything, will this Court do about it?

Begin with how we got here. One strand of the story runs this way, and it starts in the academy. In the early 20th century, a group of scholars including Woodrow Wilson and James Landis came to the view that our “simple tripartite form of government” was “inadequa[te] . . . to deal with modern problems.” J. Landis, The Administrative Process 1 (1938) (Landis). Really, they thought, our constitutional system had become “unworkable.” F. Goodnow, Politics and Administration 14 (1900) (Goodnow); see also H. Laski, Authority in the Modern State 70–71 (1919).

To meet modern challenges, Wilson and others argued, American government needed to reorient itself around the goal of operating with the “utmost possible efficiency.” W. Wilson, The Study of Administration, 2 Pol. Sci. Q. 197 (1887) (Wilson, Study of Administration). Impressed by the perceived competence of the Prussian bureaucracy, they called Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

All told, Wilson and his followers argued for an entirely new model of “[p]ublic administration.” Wilson, Study of Administration 212. To be sure, this model had its nuances, and its proponents their disagreements. But a few ideas were central to the project. First, new agencies needed to be created and staffed by scientific and technical “expert[s]” with the “technical skill” to translate “far-reaching . . . legislation into reality.” Landis 25–26; id., at 23–25 (emphasizing the “need for expertness”).

Second, these experts had to be insulated from political control. As Wilson put it, the Nation's traditional commitment to “popular sovereignty” entrusted too much to a “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn, or foolish” people. Wilson, Study of Administration 207–208. And letting the public anywhere near the new bureaucracies would amount to letting “a rustic handl[e] delicate machinery.” Id., at 215; see also W. Wilson, Shorthand Diary, in 1 Papers of Woodrow Wilson 143 (A. Link ed. 1966) (“[U]niversal suffrage is at the foundation of every evil in this country”); cf. Goodnow 85.

Finally, to fulfill their new responsibilities, politically insulated agency experts needed power. Lots of it. Much more than just executive authority to enforce the laws Congress writes. They also required authority over “legislative and judicial acts.” W. Wilson, Notes for Lectures on Administration at the Johns Hopkins (1891), in 7 Papers of Woodrow Wilson 136 (A. Link ed. 1969) (Wilson, Notes). All told, they needed “legislative power,” “executive power,” and—while they were at it—“whatever power might be required to achieve the desired results.” Landis 10; see also Wilson, Notes 138 (describing as “advantag[e]ous” the Prussian Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Influential as these ideas were, they met with some hard realities as they progressed from the academy into the halls of government. For an illustration, look no further than the FTC itself and the case at the center of today's dispute, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935). Congress created the FTC in 1914 through legislation that by-then President Wilson signed into law. See ch. 311, 38 Stat. 717. In establishing the agency, Congress endowed it with considerable power both to define and prosecute “unfair methods of competition.” Id., at 719–720. And in the same breath, Congress insulated the agency's leadership from democratic control, at least to a degree: Once leaders were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, Congress provided, the President could remove them only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Id., at 718.

Even so, the notion that the FTC and agencies like it would be led by technical experts who would neutrally and scientifically chart the Nation's path soon began to look a bit “quaint.” See E. Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 Harv. L. Rev. 2245, 2261 (2001). Maybe that was because politicians remained in control of the appointment and con-frmation processes. Maybe it was because they retained so many other ways to influence an agency's actions. Maybe it was because policymaking, even when performed by technical experts, almost always requires tradeoffs between com-peting values. Or maybe it was because of some combination of these and other factors. See N. Rao, Administrative Collusion: How Delegation Diminishes the Collective Congress, 90 N. Y . U. L. Rev. 1463, 1477–1484 (2015).

Whatever the causes, it didn't take long for the problem to surface. Just take William E. Humphrey. In 1925, about a decade after giving up his seat in Congress for a flailed Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

If politics rather than neutral technical expertise landed Humphrey the job, they also soon made him a target for removal. Shortly after Democrats swept the election of 1932, President Franklin D. Roosevelt fred Humphrey. The President did not accuse him of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, the standard Congress had set for the removal of FTC Commissioners. See 38 Stat. 718. Nor does it seem the President was especially concerned with Humphrey's ex-pertise (or lack of it). Instead, it appears that President Roosevelt could not tolerate the “adamant[ly] conservative” Humphrey holding influence over the FTC during “an important phase of the New Deal,” and he wanted someone more sympathetic for the job. W. Leuchtenburg, The Case of the Contentious Commissioner: Humphreys' Executor v. U. S., in Freedom and Reform 305–306 (H. Hyman & L. Levy eds. 1967); see also id., at 305 (reciting Humphrey's complaint that he had been fred for “ `purely political reasons' ” (quoting Letter from W. Humphrey to G. Norris (Oct. 4, 1933))).

C

If the Wilsonian vision of agencies run by neutral experts began buckling under the weight of reality early on, another feature of the plan stuck. Those in charge of these new agencies often became very difficult to dislodge. Whether this result represented a faithful manifestation of the Wilsonian project or something else entirely poses an interesting question (political actors—like Humphrey—insulated Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

When President Roosevelt fred Humphrey, he had good reason to think he stood on firm legal ground. To be sure, Congress had imposed statutory restrictions on his removal authority and the President had not even pretended to comply with those restrictions when he dismissed Humphrey. But less than a decade earlier, this Court had held in Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926), that Article II of the Constitution extends to the President the power, unbounded by contrary statutes, to remove presidentially appointed of-fcers like Humphrey. See id., at 163–176.

As it turned out, the President's expectations proved misplaced. When Humphrey sued to challenge his dismissal, this Court brushed Myers aside, upheld Congress's removal restrictions, and declared Humphrey's firing unlawful even though he was in no position to reclaim his post. He died during the course of the litigation, leaving his heirs as the only immediate winners; the decision paved the way for them to secure his backpay. See Humphrey's, 295 U. S., at 618, 632. But the broader implications of the Court's decision were unmistakable and met with mixed reactions. James Landis greeted the decision with “deligh[t].” J. Landis, Mr. Justice Brandeis: A Law Clerk's View, 46 Publications of the Am. Jewish Hist. Soc. 467, 472 (1957). No wonder. The Supreme Court, after all, had just signed off on at least one aspect of his new model of public administration by permitting Congress to insulate agency leaders from direct presidential control. Meanwhile, and for exactly the same reason, President Roosevelt reportedly “saw in the decision the most direct of all possible trespasses on his powers as Chief Executive” and “was completely infuriated.” J. Alsop & T. Catledge, The 168 Days 14 (1938). So much so that “[i]t may very well have been [Humphrey's ], even more than the other decisions of 1935, which provided the motive for” President Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

But if Humphrey's invited very different reactions, there was perhaps one thing nearly everyone could agree on. After the Court's ruling, Congress rolled out one new “independent” agency after another. Of course, the term “independent” was always a bit of a misnomer. As we've seen, these agencies were never truly independent from politics or even the influence of the President's appointment powers. But the leadership of these new agencies at least enjoyed protection against at-will presidential removal. And Congress turned out so many new independent agencies that a committee President Roosevelt assembled a few years later complained of the rise of a new “headless `fourth branch' of the Government, a haphazard deposit of irresponsible agencies and uncoordinated powers,” one that did “violence to the basic theory of the American Constitution.” President's Committee on Administrative Management, Report on Administrative Management in the Government of the United States 36 (1937) (Roosevelt Committee). In all, the Committee found, Congress had already created “a dozen” agencies “independent” of the President. Id., at 36, 40; see also Investigation of Executive Agencies of the Government, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., 85 (S. Comm. Print 1937, prepared by the Brookings Inst.) (describing “vast and extremely important fields of Government activity almost removed from the President's direct administrative control”).

D

Congress's newfound ability to insulate agencies from direct presidential control may have encouraged it to lean into the last essential pillar of Wilson's design too. In Humphrey's wake, Congress increasingly assigned broad powers to the agencies it created, including legislative and judicial powers. Before Humphrey's, delegating those sorts of authorities to an agency risked “merely increasing” the Presi-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The result? Independent agencies today hold tremendous sway over the Nation's affairs. They regulate our businesses, 15 U. S. C. § 57a, and our financial markets, § 78w. They set the rules for the internet and airwaves. 47 U. S. C. § 303. They decide how we light our homes, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7171–7172, how we run our elections, 52 U. S. C. § 30106, and the manner of our employment, 29 U. S. C. §§ 153, 160. They determine what toys our children will play with, 15 U. S. C. §§ 2063(a)(2), (3), (d)(2), and how we interact with each other at work, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e–5. And, as the dissent explains, so much more. See post, at 516 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.).1

Often, these agencies do all this with hardly any statutory guidance, based on broad grants of legislative authority. The FTC, for example, enjoys what the Court calls the “star-tlin[g]” power to define, outlaw, and prosecute any “ `acts or practices which are unfair or deceptive.' ” Ante, at 454 (quoting 15 U. S. C. § 57a(a)(1)(B)). The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may “make such rules and regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to implement,” 15 U. S. C. § 78w(a)(1), its mandate “to insure the maintenance of fair and honest markets,” § 78b. The Federal Communications

Nor have these agencies hesitated to employ the powers Congress has given them. Take a few examples from just the past two years. In 2024, the SEC took on climate change. See 89 Fed. Reg. 21668, 21683 (requiring “Climate- Related Disclosures” in SEC flings). That same year, the FTC sought to ban nearly all employee noncompete agreements nationwide. Id., at 38342. And then there's late-night comedy. Last year, taking objection to a network host's on-air remarks, the Chairman of the FCC suggested there would be “additional work . . . ahead” for the agency if broadcasting companies did not “find ways to . . . take action.” The Benny Show, Sept. 17, 2025 (“[W]e can do this the easy way or the hard way”).

Some independent agencies even have de facto authority to create new crimes. By the 1990s, one scholar estimated that “over 300,000 federal regulations,” many of them adopted by independent agencies, “may be enforced criminally.” J. Coffee, Jr., Does “Unlawful” Mean “Criminal”?: Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law, 71 B. U. L. Rev. 193, 216 (1991). More recent and exact totals are hard to come by—some say there may be simply too many regulatory crimes to count. See id., at 218.

Over time, Congress has afforded agencies not just sweeping legislative powers but judicial ones as well, including the power to decide cases and controversies affecting Americans' private rights. We have recently begun addressing whether some of these schemes comply with Article III's assurance of an independent judge, the Seventh Amendment's promise of a jury trial, and the Due Process Clause's guarantee of a fair trial before a fair tribunal. See SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U. S. 109, 123–126 (2024); see also id., at 141 (Gorsuch, J., Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Would Congress have gone so far down this road, delegat-ing so much legislative and judicial power to agencies, without Humphrey's assurance that their leaders would enjoy protection against at-will presidential removal? Maybe. After all, Congress has also granted expansive authorities to various “executive” agencies whose heads have been subject to at-will presidential removal all along. But very possibly not. Humphrey's itself described removal protections as “essential” to the FTC's structure. 295 U. S., at 625. Ms. Slaughter cites evidence that “ `[a]t no point was it proposed that [an FTC] ought to be set up unless it be independent.' ” Brief for Respondent 5 (quoting R. Cushman, The Independent Regulatory Commissions 188 (1941)). Over the years, many commentators have offered similar assessments. See, e.g ., Landis 111 (noting “a correlation between the creation of the independent agency and broad grants of administrative power”); M. Bernstein, Regulating Business by Independent Commission 148–149 (1955) (observing that many delegations “might not have been enacted if Congress had not been able to delegate regulatory duties to agencies somewhat removed from continuing presidential guidance”). My dissenting colleagues share the same view too. See post, at 513–515.

The Court's decision today may take aim at removal protections and, in that way, one part of Wilson's vision. But, as we have seen, other parts never fully materialized. It was never the case that neutral experts alone led the agencies Congress created. And it was never true that those agencies were entirely insulated from politics or even presidential influence. Nor can the demise of one more vestige of Wilson's ambitions come as a surprise. As the Court per-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

But if today's decision represents an important step back toward the Constitution, it's also worth considering the implications it holds for the last remaining pillar of Wilson's plan. Apparently relying on the assumption that it can afford their leaders some protection against presidential removal, Congress has not just assigned executive law-enforcement power to independent agencies. It has delegated extensive lawmaking and adjudicative functions to them as well. Today's decision may not have occasion to address those delegations directly, but it carries weighty consequences for them. Open-ended delegations of legislative power have not gone away; now they will just be exercised by agency officials who answer to the President. The power to write new regulatory crimes still exists, but now the pen ultimately rests in the President's hand. The ability to judge disputes in-house remains, but now the house is white.

The whole of the President's authority also may be greater than the sum of its parts. It would be one thing if today's decision afforded the White House more control over the air-waves. Or financial markets. Or energy. But Presidents now will enjoy waxing authority over all those areas and more. A business out of favor with the party in control of the White House might be able to stave off an FCC investigation. But can it survive a subsequent FTC rule declaring Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

If all that weren't enough, Presidents have many other ways to consolidate their influence over agencies—both traditional executive agencies and now-formerly independent ones. Take just a couple examples. For decades, Presidents have employed the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to oversee proposed executive agency actions that carry significant economic impacts. See, e. g., Exec. Order No. 12291, 3 CFR 127 (1981 Comp.); Exec. Order No. 12866, 3 CFR 638 (1993 Comp.). And even before today's decision, the President has extended OIRA review to many independent agencies. Exec. Order No. 14215, 90 Fed. Reg. 10447 (2025). Separately, Presidents can sometimes adjust the reach of the civil service laws. While those laws ordinarily afford rank-and-file agency employees considerable protection against removal, see 5 U. S. C. §§ 7511– 7513, they do not apply to certain employees who hold positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character,” § 7511(b)(2). And by classify-ing more and more positions as subject to this exception, Presidents can seek to exert greater control over not just agency leaders but their subordinates as well. See, e. g., 91 Fed. Reg. 5580, 5628, 5650 (2026) (subjecting “tens of thousands” of additional positions, in both executive and independent agencies, to this exception).

So, yes, those who exercise executive power must be ultimately answerable to the President and, through him, to the American people. But while electoral accountability is a good thing, it cannot be the only thing. And allowing Presi-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

If allowing so much legislative and judicial power to accumulate in the President's hands invites real risks, the question becomes: Who will address them?

At first blush, the most natural answer might seem Congress. Aware now that the premise on which it apparently proceeded was flawed—independent agencies are not so independent after all—Congress might wish to reconsider how much power should remain in the President's hands. But if that seems a straightforward solution, there's a straightforward problem with it. Of course, Congress still possesses tools—most notably its appropriations authority—to “infu-ence how the President exercises” his legislative and judicial functions. Learning Resources v. Trump, 607 U. S. 229, 271 (2026) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). But “[a]ny President keen on his own authority . . . will have a strong incentive to veto” any effort to reclaim those powers. Id., at 270–271. The consequence is a ratchet effect: Authorities Congress once delegated by a simple majority may now require a veto-proof supermajority to retrieve.

Perhaps, then, if any real response is to come it will have to come from this Court. And that's hardly unfair. To be sure, Congress had a hand in creating the problem we now face. But this Court bears responsibility as well. It was Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Fortunately, the Constitution provides the blueprint for the job ahead. That charter provides a far surer and more democratically legitimate scheme of “public administration” than anything Wilson conjured up. With the assent of the governed, and subject to amendment by them alone, our Constitution created three branches of government—not four, and not just one led by the President either. Each branch bears the authority and responsibility to exercise distinct powers. Congress must make the laws that govern us, the executive branch must faithfully execute those laws, and independent judges and juries must decide disputes that arise under them.

Fortunately, too, this Court already has many doctrines designed to protect the Constitution's separation of powers. Just as today's decision holds that Article II requires those who exercise executive power to answer to an elected President, this Court's nondelegation doctrine recognizes that Article I vests “[a]ll” federal legislative power in Congress and no one else. See Art. I, § 1. Of course, Congress can enlist experts to advise it in its work and leave implementation details to others, but the doctrine holds that Congress alone can make laws regulating private conduct. See, e. g., Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388 (1935). By that doctrine's side stands the major questions doctrine, which teaches that, to sustain a claim that Congress has delegated to it some “[e]xtraordinary” regulatory power, an agency must identify “clear” statutory authority for that power. West Virginia v. EPA, 597 U. S. 697, 723 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Vagueness doctrine can contribute Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

We have, then, no shortage of tools. The only real question is whether we will use them. Yes, we often recite, the Constitution contains “a bar on [the] delegation” of “[l]egisla-tive power” to agencies. FCC v. Consumers' Research, 606 U. S. 656, 672 (2025). But we have sometimes shrunk from applying that rule, worried that “our increasingly complex society” cannot manage unless someone else assumes Congress's job of making the laws that govern us. Mistretta v. United States, 488 U. S. 361, 372 (1989). Yes, we say, when agencies claim “[e]xtraordinary” delegated power, they “must point to clear congressional authorization for” it. West Virginia, 597 U. S., at 723 (internal quotation marks omitted). But some have also suggested the major questions doctrine might be tainted by an “anti-administrative-state stance,” one that could prevent the “people . . . found in agencies” “from doing important work.” Id., at 779–781 (Kagan, J., dissenting). And, yes, all agree that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a jury in suits at common law. But it can also seem to some that Congress occasionally has “good reaso[n]” to let agencies decide cases anyway given their “greater efficiency and expertise.” Jarkesy, 603 U. S., at 202 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

Whatever merit these objections once might have held, they now speak to a bygone era. As my dissenting colleagues see it, removal protections were “centrally important,” or perhaps even “ `essential,' ” to Congress when it decided to create so many independent agencies and delegate Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

*

The Court today takes a notable step back toward the Constitution. By recognizing that the President is entitled to remove a principal officer who exercises executive power in his name, the Court does much to vindicate what Franklin D. Roosevelt and James Madison both understood: Under our Constitution, executive power does not belong to a “headless `fourth branch,' ” Roosevelt Committee 36, but must be exercised through a “chain of dependence” running from “the lowest officers” to “the President,” and from him to the American people, 1 Annals of Cong. 499 (J. Madison).

At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to think that step is enough on its own. The fact remains that Congress has endowed formerly independent agencies not just with executive authority, but with enormous legislative and judicial powers as well. And now the President enjoys control over all those powers too. From here, the only sure path is to finish the journey we start today and restore legislative and judicial powers to where they belong: in Congress and the courts. We have tolerated adventurous theories long enough. It is time to return, all the way, to the Constitution. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

For most of this Nation's history, Congress and the President together have decided that some Government functions should operate at a distance from partisan politics. Those include the management of nuclear energy; the security of the monetary supply; and the safety of American workplaces, consumer products, and chemical hazards. In these and many other areas, the wisdom of the centuries has taught that some decisions should depend not only on who is in of-fice—much less on who is disfavored or owed a favor by those in office—but also on judgment, expertise, and the public good.

Since the founding, Congress has created agencies that in various ways have embodied this goal of independence. Over the last 140 years especially, the political branches have done so by establishing agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC): bipartisan, multimember bodies with “for-cause” removal protections. This structure allows the agencies to address complex problems while enjoying some independence from Presidential removal and thus absolute partisan control. More than 90 years ago, this Court af-firmed, as to the FTC specifically, that the constitutionality of its members' “for cause” removal protections “cannot well be doubted.” Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602, 629 (1935). Ever since, Congress and more than a dozen Presidents have relied on Humphrey's to construct a workable Government, creating many other agencies in the FTC's tradition.

Today, this Court undoes centuries of political practice and concludes that all three branches of Government have been acting in open defiance of the Constitution all this time. Its conclusion is wrong. The text of the Constitution, along with its history, the longstanding practices of the political branches, and the precedents of this Court, make clear that Congress may limit the causes for which the heads of Com-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Perhaps worst of all, the Court today forgets its place. For most of our history, the Court has rightly left the removal question primarily to its coequal branches. Today's majority, however, decides that it knows better: better than members of the founding generation who created agencies, like the Sinking Fund Commission and the Bank of the United States, free from unfettered Presidential control; better than a century and a half of Congresses and Presidents, starting with Grover Cleveland and continuing into the 21st century, who created agencies in the FTC's mold; better than even Hamilton, Story, Webster, Holmes, Brandeis, Frankfurter, and Rehnquist. These great statesmen and Justices knew something that today's majority apparently does not: that fealty to the Constitution means respecting not just what it says, but what it does not say and by its silence leaves to others to decide. It also means respecting precedent—not as a wooden exercise, but out of a recognition that, whatever our confidence in the theories of the present moment, the wisdom of our founding document does not belong to today's Justices alone. Because the Court ignores these foundational tenets, and in doing so upends rather than upholds the separation of powers, I respectfully dissent.

In 1914, Congress enacted the Federal Trade Commission Act, which established the FTC primarily to prevent “unfair methods of competition in commerce.” § 5, 38 Stat. 719, as Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

In 2018, President Trump nominated, and the Senate unanimously confirmed, Democrat Rebecca Slaughter to serve as an FTC Commissioner. In 2024, Slaughter was reconfirmed to serve a second term. In January 2025, soon upon assuming office, President Trump exercised his statutory authority to designate Andrew Ferguson as the new FTC Chair, 15 U. S. C. § 41, and (as is customary) the former Chair who had served under President Biden resigned her seat. At that point, the FTC was split down the middle with two Democratic and two Republican Commissioners.

While the nomination of the President's choice to replace the Chair was pending before the Senate in March 2025, he fred the two remaining Democratic Commissioners, includ-ing Slaughter, leaving only the two Republican Commissioners. He did not identify any “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” on either removed Commissioner's part. Ibid. Instead, he simply asserted that these Commissioners were removed pursuant to the President's “authority under Article II of the Constitution.” App. 28.

Slaughter sued, and the District Court granted her motion for summary judgment, holding that “the law on the removal of FTC Commissioners is clear” under Humphrey's and prohibits Slaughter's removal without cause. 791 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (DC 2025). The Court of Appeals denied the Govern-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Six years ago, this Court announced that the President generally must be able to fire executive officials “at will” (that is, for any reason or even no reason at all). Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204–205 (2020). In so holding, the Court recognized “two exceptions” to that “general rule” of “unrestricted removal power,” id., at 215: one for inferior officers and one that allowed Congress to “create expert agencies led by a group of principal officers removable by the President only for good cause,” id., at 204 (emphasis deleted). Today, the Court doubles back on the second exception for agencies like the FTC, and doubles down on its “general rule” that the President's removal power cannot be cabined in any way. Its decision is grievously wrong.

1

This case should have begun and ended with this Court's unanimous decision from almost a century ago: Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602. Humphrey's addressed the very statute at issue here, which allows the President to remove FTC Commissioners only “ `for ineff-ciency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,' ” and upheld its constitutionality against the very same challenge levied in this case. Id., at 620; see id., at 629, 631–632. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

For an agency of this “character,” the Court held that Congress permissibly could forbid Presidential “removal except for cause.” Id., at 631–632. Given the FTC's role in “carrying into operation” Congress's legislative goals, it needed some independence from Presidential domination. Id., at 630. It was “quite evident” to the Court, moreover, “that one who holds his office only during the pleasure of another . . . cannot be depended upon to maintain an attitude of independence against the latter's will.” Id., at 629. Indeed, the Court explained, James Madison had suggested much the same thing when discussing the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury in 1789. See id., at 631 (citing 1 Annals of Cong. 611–612 (1789)). For executive officers whose duties “partak[e] strongly of the judicial character,” Madison explained, “there may be strong reasons why an officer of this kind should not hold his office at the pleasure of the Executive branch.” 1 Annals of Cong. 612. For the FTC too, the Court held, removal protections complied with the Constitution. Humphrey's, 295 U. S., at 631–632. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

In later decades, the Court reaffirmed Humphrey's rule that certain executive officers may enjoy for-cause protections. In Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654 (1988), Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for a 7-to-1 Court, applied and expanded Humphrey's in a new context, approving removal protections for an independent counsel tasked with investigating allegations of crime by high executive officers. 487 U. S., at 688–691. Rejecting the idea that the only officers who could permissibly be granted removal protections were those who exercised “ `quasi-legislative' ” or “ `quasi-judicial' powers,” the Court held that the more fundamental question was whether removal protections unduly “interfere[d] with the President's exercise of the `executive power.' ” Id., at 688–690. Still, the Court explained, Humphrey's “analysis Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Even in more recent cases in which the Court has declined to “extend Humphrey's to a `new situation,' ” ante, at 449, the Court has underscored that Humphrey's remains good law in its core application to multimember bodies like the FTC, see Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 215–218; Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U. S. 477, 483 (2010). In Seila Law , for instance, the Court held that removal protections were incompatible with an agency headed by a single director (rather than a multimem-ber commission). 591 U. S., at 218–219. Even so, the principal opinion explicitly suggested that Congress could fx that problem by “converting” the single-headed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with all of the powers it possessed, “into a multimember agency” just like the FTC that Humphrey's had addressed. 591 U. S., at 237 (opinion of Roberts, C. J., joined by Alito and Kavanaugh, JJ.).

Searching for a distinction, the Government (echoed by the majority) contends that Humphrey's should not control as to the present-day FTC because the FTC's powers have expanded over the years since Humphrey's was decided. See Brief for Petitioners 25–28; ante, at 454–455. The premise that the FTC has fundamentally changed, however, is untrue: Contrary to the Government's assertions, the FTC of 1935, like today's FTC, had the power to conduct investigations, make rules, and bring enforcement actions. See Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 719–723. 1 To the

Far from the minimal impact that the majority imagines Humphrey's to have had, ante, at 447–450, Humphrey's has sat at the center of this Court's separation-of-powers jurisprudence for nearly a century. If precedent were any guide, this case would be open and shut: The FTC's removal protec-

plausibility.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 287, n. 10 (2020) (Kagan, J., concurring in judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part) (citation omitted). It is also true that, despite these powers existing at the time, Humphrey's described the FTC as sharing “no part of the executive power.” 295 U. S., at 625, 628; see ante, at 446–447, 449, 462 (highlighting this point). For decades, however, this Court has recognized that even for agencies exer-cising powers that “would at the present time be considered `executive,' ” Humphrey's rule applies. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 689–690, and n. 28 (1988). Congress, even before Morrison, extensively legislated, creating many agencies like the FTC, based on that understanding. See infra, at 489–490, 513–516. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

2

Humphrey's is not just a longstanding precedent of this Court. It also reflects a “deeply rooted tradition” embraced by all three branches of Government and the American people. PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F. 3d 75, 177 (CADC 2018) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting).

Such “longstanding practice” is entitled to “ `great weight' ” in separation-of-powers cases like this one. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP , 591 U. S. 848, 862 (2020). On “doubtful question[s]” regarding the meaning of the Constitution, historical practice, when “deliberately established” through “legislative acts,” can “put at rest” the Constitution's meaning. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401 (1819); see ante, at 438. That is so even for practices that “began after the founding era.” NLRB v. Noel Canning , 573 U. S. 513, 525 (2014). 3 As Justice Scalia explained, constitutional interpretation should refect “the principles adhered to, over time, by the American people, rather than those favored by the personal (and necessarily shifting) philosophical dispositions of a majority of this Court.” Rutan

These principles apply with full force here. Today's decision addresses one of the oldest, most vigorously debated questions in constitutional law. See infra, at 445–450. Fifty years before Humphrey's was decided, Congress and the President began to reach a settled answer to that question, at least as to multimember agencies like the FTC. In 1887, as the railroads grew in strength across the American economy, Congress responded by creating the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), a powerful new agency with five Commissioners, appointed by the President by and with the consent of the Senate, who were removable only “for in-efficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Act of Feb. 4, 1887, § 11, 24 Stat. 383. Three years later, Congress established the nine-member Board of General Appraisers to regulate American customs and granted it the same form of removal protection. Act of June 10, 1890, § 12, 26 Stat. 136; see A. Bamzai, Taft, Frankfurter, and the First Presidential For-Cause Removal, 52 U. Rich. L. Rev. 691, 694–695 (2018) (describing this Board as “one of the most powerful entities within the federal government” at the time). The Federal Reserve Board followed with similar removal protections in 1913. Act of Dec. 23, 1913, 38 Stat. 260–261. The next year, Congress created the FTC with removal protections aimed at ensuring “a continuous policy,” “free from the effect of . . . changing [White House] incumbency.” 51 Cong. Rec. 10376 (1914).

From here, “many more . . . for-cause removal provisions followed.” Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 275–276 (opinion of Kagan, J.). Today, dozens of agencies are headed by commissioners or board members removable only for cause. Id., at 276; see J. Manners & L. Menand, The Three Permissions: Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Congress, moreover, has taken this action not only with the Executive Branch's “acquiesce[nce],” but also with the active participation of Presidents across the ideological spectrum. Zivotofsky v. Kerry , 576 U. S. 1, 23 (2015); see also, e. g., United States v. Midwest Oil Co., 236 U. S. 459, 473 (1915) (endorsing the “wise and quieting rule that in deter-mining . . . the existence of a power, weight shall be given to the usage itself—even when the validity of the practice is the subject of investigation”). President Lincoln, even before the creation of the ICC in 1887, “asked Congress to establish” a Comptroller of the Currency and then signed the bill enacting that office into law even though it restricted the President's power to remove the Comptroller. Seila Law ,

4 In fact, other than

591 U. S., at 274 (opinion of Kagan, J.). Humphrey's own removal, the Government struggles to find any Presidential objections to, let alone repudiations of, for-cause removal protections like the FTC's since they came into existence in the late 1800s. See Reply Brief 10–11 (noting one Presidential signing statement “questioning” removal protections but still signing them into law). Even if Humphrey's had never been decided, this longstanding practice, jointly undertaken by Congresses and Presidents, should be entitled to significant weight.

4 The majority suggests that it is unlikely that President Lincoln would have supported a bill limiting his own removal power, see ante, at 461, n. 8, but that fies in the face of the fact that he did sign this bill into law without objection. Nor does the fact that Congress later repealed this law erase the historical record of Lincoln's actions. Ibid.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The answer is no. Although the majority suggests that its view reflects a settled construction of the Constitution, the opposite is true. For more than a century, the Nation has firmly rejected the majority's view and has recognized that Congress, not this Court, has primary say over whether multimember commissions like the FTC should have some insulation from direct Presidential control. It is thus the majority, not Humphrey's or the FTC, that improperly “transform[s] the `established practice' of the political branches.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 867.

Ninety years of precedent and 140 years of consistent political practice should have been more than enough to resolve this case. They are not enough, however, for the majority. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

There is no need for this renewed analysis, but even if we must return to fundamentals, the majority remains deeply wrong. Until 2010, this Court had generally allowed Congress to impose reasonable limits on the President's default power to remove Executive Branch officials if doing so did not impair his ability to perform his constitutional duties. See Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 515–516, 532–533 (Breyer, J., dissenting). Recently, however, the Court has seized the issue from the political branches by fashioning a “general rule” of mandatory, illimitable at-will Presidential removal. Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 215. From the start, the majority's theory rested on shaky ground. Over time, its arguments have grown weaker still, as historical evidence has undermined key pillars of its theory. Today, the Court faced a choice: plow ahead, or acknowledge that the foundations on which the “general rule” of illimitable removal power rests are less stable than the Court has previously asserted. Unfortunately, the Court repeats and expands upon several prior errors that require correction.

1

Beginning at the founding, there is no evidence that those who shaped or ratified the Constitution adopted the majority's general rule of at-will removal. Indeed, the Court has long noted that, for the most part, “[t]he Constitution is silent with respect to the power of removal from office, where the tenure is not fixed.” Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 258 (1839). The one exception, and only explicit removal power granted in the Constitution, is for impeachment of the “President, Vice President, and all Civil Officers,” a power placed in Congress's hands, not the President's. See Art. I, § 3,

cls. 6–7; Art. II, § 4. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

There is little to suggest that “executive Power,” as understood at the time of the founding, was as capacious as the Court today asserts. The powers held by the English Crown and state governors before ratification did not include a removal power that the legislature could not modify. Instead, Parliament often restricted the Crown's ability to remove even high-level royal officers, and States with vesting clauses like the Constitution's similarly allowed for limits on gubernatorial removal powers. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 267–268 (opinion of Kagan, J.). Recent, post-Seila Law scholarship overwhelmingly confirms this point. 5

Nor is there evidence that the Constitution was intended to give the President more expansive removal powers than those enjoyed by the Crown. For good reason: Doing so would have been inconsistent with the Constitution's very foundation. The Framers “never intended” to give the President “the complete set of powers” that the English Crown held, let alone more.

Removal also “was not discussed in the Constitutional Convention,” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 109–110 (1926), making an expansion of preratifcation executive power unlikely. Alexander Hamilton, then writing to support the States' ratification of the Constitution, explained that because the power to remove traditionally followed the power to appoint, “[t]he consent of [the Senate] would be necessary to displace as well as to appoint.” The Federalist No. 77, p. 458 (C. Rossiter & C. Kesler eds. 1999). This was a selling point for the Constitution, as it meant that “[a] change of the [President] would not occasion so violent or so general a revolution in the officers of the government as might be

6

expected if he were the sole disposer of offices.” Ibid.

The Constitution may have been intended, as the majority argues at length, to “forg[e] a new path,” in contrast to some state governments at the time, by “opting for one President” and not a “ `committee-style' ” Presidency. See ante, at 429– 431, 433–438. This new path, however, does not lead where the majority wishes to go. Whether executive power vests in a single President or a council, the question remains whether the Vesting Clause forecloses any limitations on that person's (or body's) power to remove subordinate officials. For proof, look no further than Hamilton, who certainly agreed that executive power ought to be “placed in a `single hand.' ” Ante , at 435 (quoting The Federalist No. 70, p. 424 (C. Ros-siter ed. 1961)). Yet Hamilton also saw this choice as entirely compatible with his view that “[t]he consent of” the Senate would be necessary “to displace as well as to appoint” officers. The Federalist No. 77, at 458 (Rossiter & Kessler eds. 1999). He plainly did not view “the power to remove at will [a]s a necessary corollary of the Constitution's design,” ante, at 437, and the majority is wrong to assume that a unitary Presidency implies an unlimited removal power.

The majority relatedly places undue weight on the notion that “ `[t]he power of appointing and removing executive of-fcers [is] inherent in [the] Executive.' ” Ibid. Under the Constitution, the President does not have unlimited appointment powers either. His power is to “nominate”; only “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” may he “appoint” the “Officers of the United States.” Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. What is more, the President can appoint officers only to of-fices “established by Law”—that is, by Congress. Ibid.

view in The Federalist, see ante, at 458, “changing minds and inconstant opinions don't usually prove the existence of constitutional rules.” Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 270, n. 4 (opinion of Kagan, J.).

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Nor does the Take Care Clause serve as a plausible source for the expansive removal power the majority posits. Contra, ante, at 433. “[T]he provision—`he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed'—speaks of duty, not power.” Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 268 (opinion of Kagan, J.) (quoting Art. II, § 3). As recent scholarship has explained, “ `[f]aithful execution' was proto-fiduciary legal language from centuries of English law that limited the discretion of executive officials” and did “not expan[d] their power.” J. Shugerman, The Misuse of Ratification-Era Sources by Unitary Executive Theorists, 58 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 591, 603– 604 (2025); see A. Kent, E. Leib, & J. Shugerman, Faithful Execution and Article II, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 2111, 2120 (2019) (explaining that the original public meaning of the Take Care Clause “supports readings of Article II that tend to subordinate presidential power to congressional direction”). At-will removal might be one good way of fulfilling those duties. There is no evidence, however, that anyone understood the Take Care Clause at or near the founding to imply a mandatory, inflexible rule of at-will removal that Congress could never modify.

In sum, nothing in the text of the Constitution, as understood at the time of the founding by those who ratified it, suggests the illimitable removal power the Court today endorses. The majority can shut its eyes to this evidence and point back to its past mistakes as support for the new ones of today. See ante, at 448–449 (citing Seila Law and Free Enterprise Fund). To the extent “ `[o]riginal history' ” is seen as “generally dispositive,” however, see United States v. Rah-imi, 602 U. S. 680, 738 (2024) (Barrett, J., concurring), this Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

2

The majority quibbles with some of the evidence discussed above, but in the end cites nothing from the ratification debates or the Constitution's text endorsing its view of unbounded removal power. Instead, the majority rests mostly on postratifcation commentary and congressional inaction. On this score, though, the majority also comes up short. Presidential removal has long evoked strong, conflicting views from American political leaders, but the available evidence from 1789 through the end of the 19th century reflects that the political branches have long believed, and acted upon the belief, that Congress has the power to set limits on the President's removal authority and that the President was not free to flout such limits when enacted.

a

Starting where the majority starts, the debates of the First Congress over the removal process for early department heads (which culminated in the “Decision of 1789”) in no way resolve the question presented here. See ante, at 438–440. To begin, the majority's own theory is inconsistent. If “[t]ext and structure” already “taught that the President had to be able to remove” all of his inferiors in order to “ `be personally responsible for everything' ” within the Executive Branch, ante, at 438, then it is unclear what was left for the First Congress to “decide,” much less spend days debating. The very need for a Decision of 1789 suggests that the removal question was still unanswered by 1789.

In any event, the debates from 1789 do not support the majority's understanding of executive power. The House in 1789 did not address whether Congress could place limits on the President's power to remove; it debated whether the Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The one “ `[d]ecision' ” that emerged from this debate was that “a congressional role in the removal process was rejected.” Bowsher v. Synar , 478 U. S. 714, 723 (1986). To be clear on this, given the majority's elliptical treatment of what took place in the summer of 1789, here is what actually happened: The bill the House initially debated provided that the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs would “be removable by the President.” 1 Annals of Cong. 370–371. Madison and his allies at first argued that this language should be “retain[ed] . . . in the bill” because it was “explanatory of the meaning of the Constitution” (that is, they thought it confirmed the President's power to remove), id., at 464 (Madison), while the other camps opposed this language. Several days later, however, Madison and his allies “reversed course,” arguing that the language they originally favored might wrongly suggest that the President lacked any removal power unless Congress provided for it by statute. J. Shugerman, The Indecisions of 1789: Inconstant Originalism and Strategic Ambiguity, 171 U. Pa. L. Rev. 753, 760 (2023); 1 Annals of Cong. 578 (Madison's ally, Egbert Benson, moving to amend the bill for these reasons). Ultimately, the House settled on a vague clause detailing who would have custody of certain books and records “whenever the said

As a result, nearly every scholar to have studied this episode, even those broadly supportive of the majority's view, has come to agree that “the Decision of 1789 did not endorse the view that Congress lacked authority to modify the Constitution's grant of removal power to the President.” S. Prakash, New Light on the Decision of 1789, 91 Cornell L. Rev. 1021, 1073 (2006); see J. Manning, Separation of Powers as Ordinary Interpretation, 124 Harv. L. Rev. 1939, 1964– 1965, n. 135 (2011); see also Shugerman, 171 U. Pa. L. Rev., at 759–762. Instead, Congress in 1789 left that question to later generations.

Fumbling for a response, the majority asserts that there is no constitutional difference between a rule against congressional participation in removals, on the one hand, and a rule against tenure protections, on the other. See ante, at 458–459 (arguing that these are “one and the same”). That is not how the Court has understood matters. The Court has long distinguished between impermissible efforts by Congress to “reserve for itself the power of removal of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment” (the issue decided in 1789), and the permissible “power of Congress to limit the President's powers of removal of a” principal officer. Bowsher , 478 U. S., at 724– 726. “Madison's position ultimately prevailed” in “urg[ing] rejection of a congressional role in the removal of Executive Branch officers,” id., at 723, but Humphrey's “involved an issue not presented” by that triumph, 478 U. S., at 724.

The majority also compares the President's removal power to the pardon and veto powers, suggesting that once Con-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

b

The majority attempts to shore up its view of the Decision of 1789 with commentary from the years that followed, but several of its own sources show its errors. The first slew of citations shows only that Senate consent was unnecessary for removal. See ante, at 440–441. The debate that was, in James Kent's words, “firmly and definitively settled” in 1789, was not whether at-will removal was constitutionally required, as the majority suggests; it was whether “participation in [the removal] authority by the senate” was necessary or permitted. 1 Kent 289–290. Joseph Story con-firmed that the decision in which “[t]he public . . . acquiesced” was Congress's “affirm[ance] of the power of removal in the [P]resident, without any co-operation of the [S]enate.” 3 Story §§ 1536–1537, at 394–395. Daniel Webster, too, decried the Decision of 1789 as wrongly allowing the President to remove independently, rather than “concurrently” with the Senate. 11 Cong. Deb. 466 (1835) (1835 Debates). Contrary to the majority, even by 1835, Webster still “believe[d] Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The power of the President to remove without Senate consent does not, however, mean that Congress was forbidden from placing any restraints on that power. Even Madison seems to have agreed. In 1789, he argued that for officers who “partak[e] strongly of the judicial character,” “there may be strong reasons why an officer of this kind should not hold his office at the pleasure of the Executive [B]ranch.” 1 Annals of Cong. 611–612; see Humphrey's, 295 U. S., at 631 (describing Madison's view). Others thought similarly. Asked by President Monroe whether at-will removal was permitted without explicit statutory authorization, Attorney General William Wirt answered in the affirmative, but only because “[w]henever Congress intend[s] a more permanent tenure . . . they take care to express that intention clearly and explicitly.” 1 Op. Atty. Gen. 212, 213 (1818). This shows both that Monroe did not assume an at-will removal power and that Wirt believed it could be curtailed.

Story did note, in 1833, that Congress had until then generally left the President free to remove officers at will. It is unclear, however, if he believed Congress could provide more durable tenures of office. As the majority observes, Story suggested in a footnote that the vote in 1789 “seems to have expressed the sense of the legislature, that the power of removal by the executive could not be abridged by the legislature.” 3 Story § 1531, at 390, n. 1. On the prior page, though, Story identified, as an open question, “whether congress can give any duration of office . . . not subject to the exercise of this power of removal.” Id., § 1531, at 389. Given Story's view that the “vote finally taken” in 1789 was merely “affirmative of the power of removal in the president, without any co-operation of the senate,” id., § 1536, at 394, it is most likely that the “sense of the legislature” described in his footnote was the view that Congress could not insert itself into removal decisions by requiring Senate consent. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Webster was much clearer. In 1835, “proceed[ing] upon the admission that [the President's power to remove without Senate consent] does at present exist,” he urged that Congress nonetheless retained the authority to “regulat[e] . . . the tenure of office.” 1835 Debates 468. In his view, “no one could doubt [the] constitutional validity” of a law “declar-ing that district attorneys, or collectors of customs,” could be “removed [only] on conviction for misbehaviour,” or even of an “unwise” law imposing a similar removal restriction on “the Attorney General, or the Secretary of State.” Id., at 468–469. He was not alone. Henry Clay and John C. Cal-houn, often rivals to each other and to Webster, also agreed: Clay argued at length that “the legislative authority is competent to regulate the exercise of the power of dismission” (that is, removal), id., at 524, and Calhoun confessed that, although he had once believed the issue settled in favor of the President's power to remove, he had changed his mind and was “forced to conclude that the power of dismissing is not lodged in the President, but is subject to be controlled and regulated by Congress,” id., at 554–555. 9

Far from “settled” in 1789, these continuing discussions show that the removal issue remained an open, contested question long after the founding. See, e. g., Hennen, 13 Pet., at 259 (describing the “power of removal” as “a subject much

8 Story, after all, was no enthusiast of a muscular executive removal power. See n. 6, supra (detailing the “ `just alarms' ” raised over the prospect of such power); 9 The majority has no response regarding Clay and Calhoun, but notes infra, at 510, 527 (similar). that Webster, in 1850, may have come around to the majority's view of the Decision of 1789. See ante, at 442. If the majority's case depends on the shifting views of individual Senators between 1835 and 1850, it is unclear why Congress similarly was not free, a mere 37 years later in 1887, to change course again and impose modest limitations on the President's removal power like those at issue in this case. See infra, at 505.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

c

Even as the President's ability to remove executive off-cers was the subject of spirited debate in the early republic, limitations on Presidential removal nevertheless were enacted. The majority is correct that Presidents generally “utilized their removal power” when not limited by law, see ante, at 441, but the 19th-century history of Presidential removal is not as absolute as the majority suggests.

To start, the First Congress itself created administrative bodies that, although not identical to agencies like the FTC, enjoyed significant independence in ways that undermine the majority's simplistic history of uniform at-will removal. For instance, in 1790 Congress enacted (and President Washington signed) a law creating the Sinking Fund Commission, a five-member agency responsible for stabilizing the Nation's debt. See Act of Aug. 12, 1790, 1 Stat. 186; Chabot 172–173. Three Cabinet Secretaries, the Vice President, and the Chief Justice headed the Commission, and the latter two could not be removed by the President—making the body at least semi-independent.10 It is true that the other three members were removable at will, see ante, at 460, but the independence of some members meant that Presidential control of the fund was not complete. This structure did not stand alone: In 1790, Congress included the Chief Justice as a member of the Mint Board, again allowing an independent individual to carry out important Treasury functions and partake in the

10 The majority hypothesizes that the President, though he could not fire the Chief Justice or Vice President from their principal jobs, could remove them from their positions on the Commission. Ante , at 460. There is no evidence of this ever occurring, however; and even if it could have happened, that would have just left the Commission down a member, since the President could not add a new Vice President or Chief Justice on his own.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Nor was this the only way in which the First Congress legislated to achieve agency independence. It also established the Revolutionary War Debt Commission: a board of “three commissioners” created “to settle the accounts between the United States, and the individual states,” whose decisions would be “final and conclusive” without further review. Act of Aug. 5, 1790, ch. 38, 1 Stat. 178. Hamilton would later describe the Commission as made up of “distinct and Independant Officers.” 16 Papers of Alexander Hamilton 145 (H. Syrett ed. 1972). The majority correctly notes that the statute did not expressly speak of removal. See ante, at 460. It did, however, specify that the Commissioners would “continue” in office “until the first day of July [1792].” § 9, 1 Stat. 179. Scholarship has recently shown, consistent with precedent, infra, at 506, that at the founding, such fixed-term tenures were broadly understood to preclude removal “before the end of th[e] ter[m].” Manners & Men-and 5. On this understanding, the Commissioners truly were, as Hamilton claimed, independent. 11

As the years went by, Congress continued to implement forms of tenure protection. In 1791 and then 1816, it cre-

Finally, in 1887, Congress created the ICC with removal protections that would later serve as the template for those of many other agencies, including the Federal Reserve and the FTC. See supra, at 489–490. For the next century and a half, that model would go on to be embraced by Congress and Presidents alike, quickly built upon, and ultimately rati-fed by this Court's decision in Humphrey's.

Against this backdrop, the majority at most can point to the paucity of many removal protections enacted during most of the 19th century. The majority's view thus appears to be that Congress's inaction, in declining to impose provisions identical to the FTC's until 1887, forfeited its ability ever to do so in the future. If that is how the majority sees things, then it is the majority that endorses an unsupported, Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

3

Even before Humphrey's, the Court's precedents likewise made clear that it is the majority's radical theory of unitary executive power, not the sustained practice of the political branches over the centuries, that is out of step with traditional notions of separation of powers in this country.

No case before the turn of the 20th century suggested that the President's removal power was not regulable by Congress. In Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), Chief Justice Marshall approvingly recognized that an office with a 5-year fixed-term tenure was “not removable at the will of the executive” and thus was “independent of the executive.” Id., at 162, 172. That protection meant that, “having once made [a fixed-term] appointment, [the President's] power over the office [was] terminated in all cases.” Id., at 162. Indeed, the historic dispute in that case, over whether Mar-bury had been commissioned to his office as a justice of the peace, would have been academic if President Jefferson could have removed Marbury at pleasure once commissioned. It mattered only if Marbury, at that point, was safe from removal.12

The majority cites Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, which in 1839 addressed a territorial court's power to remove a clerk of that court. Id., at 258. In discussing background removal principles supporting such power, Hennen recognized that the power to remove Presidential appointees was generally “vested in the President alone,” i. e., “the concurrence of the Senate” was not required. Id., at 259. It also made clear, however, that the tenure of offices could vary if “limited by law.” Ibid. A case the majority ignores, United States v.

12 The majority argues that the office at issue in Marbury (a justice of the peace) may not have exercised executive power at all, ante, at 462, n. 9, but even assuming that assertion is correct, nothing in Marbury's reasoning relied upon the distinctions the majority draws.

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

That brings us to Myers, authored by former-President and then-Chief Justice Taft. If Myers is the “best” support for the majority's position, ante, at 445, its theory is a castle built on sand. For one thing, as the majority admits, Myers did not address for-cause removal protection; the challenged statute instead required Senate consent to removal. See ante, at 443. Thus, despite the grand pretentions of the opinion, it decided no more than that the President could “remove a postmaster of the first class, without the advice and consent of the Senate.” Humphrey's, 295 U. S., at 626.

Even in doing so, Myers managed to get a great many things wrong. Its expansive reading of Article II lacked any mooring in text or preratifcation history, conceding the lack of any “express provision respecting removals in the Constitution” or “discuss[ion] in the Constitutional Convention” and instead leaping to the Decision of 1789. 272 U. S., at 109–111. Further, “[m]ost contemporary scholars agree that Taft's account of the Decision of 1789 is tendentious and historically inaccurate”; in Myers's own time, moreover, “scholars and jurists attacked its historical arguments.” A. Katz & N. Rosenblum, Becoming the Administrator-in-Chief, 123 Colum. L. Rev. 2153, 2239, and nn. 642–643 (2023) (col- Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Perhaps for those reasons, and despite the majority's contrary presentation, it is Myers that had little impact when it was decided and has only waned in influence since. Within a decade, and with four Justices from the Myers majority still on the Court, the Court in Humphrey's “reexamined the precedents referred to in the Myers case, and f[ou]nd nothing in them to justify a conclusion contrary to” the one it reached as to the FTC. 295 U. S., at 630. The Court unanimously abandoned Myers's expansive dicta, approving only “the narrow point actually decided” on the removability of postmasters “without the advice and consent of the Senate.” 295 U. S., at 626. All other statements “out of harmony” with Humphrey's were “disapproved.” Ibid.

For decades after that, the Court continued to cabin Myers to its “essence,” explaining that it stands only for the proposition that “Congress [may not] `dra[w] to itself' ” the power to remove, Morrison, 487 U. S., at 686, and says nothing about provisions merely “limit[ing] the President's powers of removal,” Bowsher , 478 U. S., at 724. As Justice Frankfurter put it in Wiener , Myers's “assumption” of “the President's inherent constitutional power to remove officials, no matter what the relation of the executive to the discharge of their duties and no matter what restrictions Congress may have imposed regarding the nature of their tenure,” was “short-lived.” 357 U. S., at 352. The majority is thus free to complain about the “shabby treatment” Myers has received, ante, at 463, but it has decades of precedent to blame for that, not this dissent. From Humphrey's to Wiener to Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

4

The majority thus has very little support in text, history, or precedent. What it does have is a theory. As the majority sees things, “the buck stops” with the President, ante, at 433, who holds all executive power and thus can be “ `blame[d]' ” or held “ `responsib[le]' ” for all executive conduct, ante, at 430–431. Yet the President cannot “execute the laws alone and unaided.” Ante , at 433. To ensure that the President can carry out his job and remain responsible for all exercises of executive power, the majority says, his inferiors must “remain accountable to [him].” Ibid. The only way for that accountability to exist, according to the majority, is for “those officers [to] be removable by the President” at will, for any reason or no reason at all. Ibid.

Responsiveness and responsibility are certainly valuable, but they are not the only values countenanced by our Constitution. Others are the continuity and stability of Government, see, e. g., The Federalist No. 77, at 458 (explaining that limitations on removal would prevent the “violent or . . . general . . . revolution in the officers of the government” at every election), and the impartiality and fair administration of justice, see, e. g., 1 Annals of Cong. 612 (Madison) (arguing that some executive officials with judicial functions “ought to hold . . . office by such a tenure as will make him responsible to the public generally,” not just the President). Depending on the situation, one value or another may be more or less important. Today, the majority places accountability to the

President above all else. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Balancing all these concerns, and the tradeoffs they entail, has historically fallen to those who know the most about them: the political branches. This Court, on the other hand, has proven itself time and again to be the least competent branch to make these judgments. Consider just one (highly salient) example: the Court's fixation on removal. As others have explained, a “wealth of features” other than at-will removal in fact determines an agency's responsiveness to the President. Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 283 (opinion of Kagan, J.); see Free Enterprise Fund, 561 U. S., at 524 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The President often names the Chair. See, e. g., § 41. He also, through the White House Office of Management and Budget, can “frequently” use the budget process to “ `influence [agencies'] policies.' ” Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 226; see also Brief for Bipartisan Former Chairs of the Federal Trade Commission as Amici Curiae 14–22 Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

In sum, agencies like the FTC do enjoy some measure of independence by virtue of removal protections, but they also remain accountable in other ways. No one can seriously doubt, for instance, that the FTC's priorities shifted between the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations. See, e. g., K. Rozga & D. Gossett, Major Leadership and Policy Changes at the FTC, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (July 14, 2021), https://www.dwt.com/ insights/2021/07/ biden-ftc -archive-antitrust-initiatives (archived at https://perma.cc / E24P-48DF) (detailing “potential sea change” and “major policy shifts” at the FTC between administrations). There are also a variety of ways in which the President (and Congress) remain accountable for the conduct of executive off-cials, even without at-will removal. See, e. g., Arthrex, 594 U. S., at 12 (explaining that the Appointments Clause “guarantees accountability” for poorly performing officers). In no way, then, does the FTC's structure, in purpose or effect, do away completely with Presidential influence. Instead, Congress's design (approved by many Presidents over decades) balances that influence with other values equally cognizable under the Constitution. The majority's rigid, inflexible rule goes badly astray by declaring one side of this balance constitutionally irrelevant. 13

13 The Government argues, in the alternative, that even if Humphrey's remains enforceable, the courts still lack power to provide effective relief by reinstating Slaughter to her position. That is incorrect. If the Constitution permits Congress to adopt modest removal protections like the FTC's, there is no additional Article II barrier to courts enforcing them. The Government also argues that, at common law, equitable relief like an injunction was unavailable to provide reinstatement. That argument neglects that a “critical reason” for that rule was that “nonequitable remedies,” like mandamus and declaratory relief, were available “to vindicate

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The reason, of course, is stare decisis, which the majority all but disregards. Faithful “[a]dherence to precedent is a `foundation stone of the rule of law.' ” Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U. S. 558, 586 (2019). Stare decisis “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process” by pro-moting “the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991), and ensuring that decisions are “founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals,” Vas-quez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). At bottom, this doctrine recognizes that, even if today's Justices might decide an issue differently than their predecessors did, greater institutional values usually counsel “sticking to some wrong decisions.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC , 576 U. S. 446, 455 (2015).

the rights at issue.” S. Bray, Remedies in the Officer Removal Cases,

Begin with a consideration the majority all but ignores: the tremendous reliance interests engendered by Humphrey's. “Stare decisis has added force when the legislature, in the public sphere, and citizens, in the private realm, have acted in reliance upon a previous decision.” Hilton v. South Carolina Public Railways Comm'n, 502 U. S. 197, 202 (1991). When overruling a prior decision would “require an extensive legislative response” or “dislodge settled rights and expectations,” ibid., the force of stare decisis is “at [its] acme,” Payne , 501 U. S., at 828.

Few cases implicate these concerns to a greater degree than Humphrey's. For the better part of the last century, Humphrey's has guided Congress in constructing the modern system of Government, including dozens of independent agencies that remain central to protecting the Nation's economy, health, safety, and more. At times, Congress has done Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Independence was centrally important to Congress in creating these agencies. “[I]t was essential that the[se] commission[s]” were not “open to the suspicion of partisan direction” and thus possessed the independence “necessary to the effective and fair administration of the law.” Humphrey's, 295 U. S., at 624–625. In creating and empowering administrative agencies throughout the late-19th and 20th centuries, Congress recognized not only the need for efficient and effective regulation of the increasingly complex American economy, but also the risks of concentrating such power in the hands of the President with no check against the influence of partisan control. For the FTC, “[t]he two ideas, a commis- Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The checks the political branches devised—bipartisan membership requirements, the multimember structure, lengthy fixed terms, and for-cause removal protections— struck an essential balance in this respect. Creating these agencies under the President gave the Executive Branch the tools needed to execute the law and accomplish the modern work of Government, preserving “ample authority” for the President to ensure the “competen[t] perform[ance]” of the officers leading the agency. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 692. At the same time, ensuring expertise, bipartisanship, and limiting the causes of removal guarded against these new agencies becoming mere political instruments, which could be turned against political enemies with one hand and used to grant flavors to allies with the other.

Indeed, without removal protections, many of the other features of these agencies' structures risk losing their force. Bipartisan-appointment requirements can easily be evaded simply by firing all Commissioners of the opposite party. Just look at the FTC today. See supra, at 482. Lengthy fixed terms, aimed at ensuring stability, continuity, and the development of expertise within an agency, can also be cut Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Today's decision profoundly undermines this reliance and, as a result, undercuts one side of the balance that the political branches struck. Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President's hands: the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, with responsibility for managing the Nation's energy supply, see 42 U. S. C. § 7171(b)(1); the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which protects Americans against harms caused by dangerous goods, see 15 U. S. C. § 2053(a); the Chemical Safety Board, tasked with investigating chemical disasters, see 42 U. S. C. § 7412(r) (6)(B); the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, responsible for the regulation of nuclear power, see §§ 5841(a), (c), (e); and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), charged with ensuring the integrity of the civil service, see 5 U. S. C. § 1202. The list of agencies potentially modified by today's decision goes on.

Seldom, if ever, has this Court worked such a profound bait and switch on a coequal branch: For more than 90 years, Congress believed, with this Court's express approval, that it was allowed to create a workable Government, including Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The majority's responses fail across the board. It first asserts that congressional reliance “is relevant only in the context of severability,” ante, at 453, n. 3, but this Court has been clear that “[s ]tare decisis has added force when the legislature, in the public sphere, . . . ha[s] acted in reliance on a previous decision,” Hilton, 502 U. S., at 202; see Payne , 501 U. S., at 828. None of the majority's severability cases overruled any precedent, see ante, at 452–453, n. 3, and so say nothing about the role of congressional reliance in the stare decisis analysis. The majority also suggests that Congress's reliance interests are somehow not “ `legitimate' ” here because Humphrey's recognized congressional power at the President's expense. Ante , at 452. This assertion is perplexing. Humphrey's endorsed Congress's authority to create agencies “to carry into effect legislative policies embodied in the statute,” with “independence against [the President's] will.” 295 U. S., at 628–629. It was that holding on which Congress has reasonably relied. If the majority means to say that this reliance was improper because Humphrey's was wrong, it gets stare decisis backwards. The doctrine's entire point is to recognize that greater institutional values can support adhering to past decisions, even if a later majority might think them mistaken. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

1

The majority's assertion that Humphrey's has proved unworkable also blinks reality. Ante , at 451–452. As just shown, for over 90 years Congress has legislated, and the Government ably functioned, against the “commonly understood” rule that heads of certain multimember agencies can enjoy modest tenure protections from at-will Presidential removal. Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd., 537 F. 3d 667, 695 (CADC 2008) (Kavanaugh, J., dis-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

To be sure, independent agencies are not carbon copies of one another, and there is some variation among their structures. Given the sensitive regulatory interests at stake and Congress's general flexibility in designing federal offices, that nuance should come as no surprise. By and large, however, these agencies follow a remarkably consistent pattern: multimember commissions, with a chair selected by the President, often with bipartisan membership requirements, sometimes with a background-expertise requirement, and, often, with a restriction permitting removal only “for cause” or for specified causes. So too do these agencies generally carry out functions like the FTC's: rulemaking, in-house adjudications, investigations, and occasional enforcement actions in court. In establishing agencies like the FTC, Congress has thus shown little difficulty applying the rule the majority today finds too murky. 14

Nor has this Court had trouble applying Humphrey's over the course of the past century. It is true that, at times over those decades, disputes have arisen over the principles at play in Humphrey's. That is to be expected for any legal doctrine. If anything, however, those disputes have been remarkably few and far between. As to multimember commissions, this Court has returned to the issue only once,

No other decisions of this Court, as to other agency structures, suggest any inability to police the bounds established by Humphrey's. Contra, ante, at 448–449. In fact, they show the opposite. Morrison accepted and broadened Humphrey's functionalist approach, clarifying only that the exercise is not meant to “define rigid categories” of officials who exercise executive power or perform executive functions, “but to ensure that Congress does not interfere with the President's” constitutional duties. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 689–690. As to the officer at issue in Morrison, the Court held that the removal protections left the President with “ample” control. Id., at 692. Free Enterprise Fund recognized Humphrey's rule, accepted it as to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and held that a second layer of protection for a subsidiary Board (a “novel structure” never considered before) was unconstitutional. 561 U. S., at 496; see id., at 487. Seila Law also took Humphrey's as a given and held that a different structure (a single-director agency head) was an “almost wholly unprecedented” “historical anomaly” that fell outside Humphrey's scope. 591 U. S., at 217, 220–223. These conclusions were, to be sure, subject to vigorous disagreement at the time. See, e. g., id., at 269–296 (opinion of Kagan, J.). Far from showing Humphrey's to be unworkable, however, those cases show how legal precedents work: They extend to some situations, but not to others, and Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The majority points to a handful of recent lower court decisions from the past year or so that purportedly show that “no one knows how to apply Humphrey's in practice.” Ante , at 457. That tumult, though, is more fairly attributed to the Court's recent emergency-docket abandonment of Humphrey's. See, e. g., Space Exploration Technologies Corp. v. NLRB , 151 F. 4th 761, 776–777 (CA5 2025); see also Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. 922, 925 (2025) (Kagan, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority for using the “emergency docket . . . to overrule or revise existing law”). When the Court flails to adhere to its own precedents in a principled manner, it is hard to expect consistency from the lower courts that must keep up with the Court's rapidly shifting views. For decades before this Court upended the doctrine, however, Humphrey's was a stable, easily understood precedent of this Court.

Last, the majority takes aim at Humphrey's use of the terms “ `quasi-legislative' ” and “ `quasi-judicial.' ” Ante , at 450. Humphrey's, however, did not draw these terms from thin air. They were “well-established term[s]-of-art,” recognized by figures from Madison to Taft by the time Humphrey's was decided. See Brief for Legal Historian N. Ro-senblum et al. as Amici Curiae 14; see id., at 4–5, 13, 20–21. Madison, recall, recognized that even executive officers may “partak[e] strongly of the judicial character” and that such officers raise distinct considerations when it comes to removal. 1 Annals of Cong. 612. By the early-19th century, courts, too, were using the term “ `quasi-judicial' to describe the duties of specialists whose work bore functional and procedural similarities with that of the judiciary” and the term “quasi-legislative” to refer to functions served by “ `subordinate agencies' ” tasked with filling in the details left Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

In the end, this Court has not “been forced to clarify the doctrine” in this arena “again and again.” Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo , 603 U. S. 369, 409 (2024). Nor has Humphrey's spurred major “confusion and disagreement” in the lower courts, or “generated a long list of Circuit con-ficts.” Dobbs, 597 U. S., at 283–284. Instead, the Humphrey's rule is long established and has been easily applied for decades.

2

The case for retaining Humphrey's becomes even stronger when compared against the majority's theory, which itself promises to unleash only chaos. With remarkable steadfastness, the majority simply refuses to explain where its theory leads or where it ends. See, e. g., ante, at 455. Although declining to consider the consequences of its decision might make it easier for the majority to cast Humphrey's aside, it leaves courts, agencies, and Congress with little guidance, and many new questions, on how they are supposed to assess removal questions going forward.

The majority, for example, suggests that its rule might not apply to adjudicatory agencies, including non-Article III courts like the Tax Court. See ante, at 456. That is welcome news, but why is it so? As the majority explains, it cannot be because such agencies are exercising judicial power. Adjudications by Executive Branch agencies “are Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Today's decision may also have major implications for inferior officers and civil-service employees, which the majority studiously ignores. The Court's precedents, to date, continue to support removal protections for such individuals. See, e. g., Perkins, 116 U. S., at 484–485 (holding, in 1886, that inferior officers appointed by a department head could be protected against at-will removal). Until today, however, Perkins and Humphrey's were the “two exceptions to the President's unrestricted removal power” this Court had recognized. Seila Law , 591 U. S., at 204. With one of those exceptions now wiped away, the majority's silence on the other one provides cold comfort. Nor is there much in the majority's logic that supports drawing a line at principal of-fcers. Inferior officers (and likely many employees within the civil service) wield some executive power. Regardless of their rank, if the President cannot have such individuals removed at will, then there is a break in “ `the chain of de-Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Perhaps most strikingly, the Court today also makes clear that, whatever the logic of its decision, there are some ad hoc historical exceptions to its totalizing view of Article II, at least for the Federal Reserve. See ante, at 456; Cook, 609 U. S., at 555–556. For most agencies, the majority here says, removal protections like the FTC's make the President's job “ `impossible' ” and so are unlawful. Ante , at 431. For agencies that follow in the “lineage” of the First and Second Banks of the United States, however, the Court recognizes that the Flounders were acutely aware “of the calamities that could arise from even the `suspicion' of political manipulation of monetary policy” and that they therefore “guaranteed [such agencies] independence from Presidential control.” Cook, 609 U. S., at 555. As a result, the Court holds, removal protections remain permissible (perhaps even indispensable) for agencies, including the Federal Reserve, that follow in “this tradition.” Ibid.

As discussed above, this is all partly right. Yes, the Flounders did “kn[ow] from experience” that some Government functions “should not be subject to political interference.” Id., at 555–556; see supra, at 503–505. Yes, this tradition need not remain “ `trapped in amber' ” while Congress continues to devise new agencies and structures to “manag[e] a vastly more complex economy in a vastly more complex world.” Cook, 609 U. S., at 555; see supra, at 506. What is unclear is why these principles should be limited Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Even assuming the majority is right that the Federal Reserve's historical pedigree gives it a special place in the constitutional structure, that just leaves the majority with yet additional workability problems. How close is close enough for a historical analogue of this kind? Does any agency that “influence[s] monetary policy” qualify? Ibid. Is it relevant that the modern agency, like the Bank of the United States, is “quasi-private”? Wilcox, 605 U. S., at 923. What happens if Congress adds new functions beyond the historical baseline? See, e. g., 12 U. S. C. § 504 (granting the Federal Reserve authority to secure civil penalties of up to $1 million per day); see also A. Bamzai & A. Nielson, Article II and the Federal Reserve, 109 Cornell L. Rev. 843, 863, 887 (2024) (describing executive powers of the Federal Reserve). In short: When, exactly is our law “ `trapped in amber,' ” and when is it not? See Cook, 609 U. S., at 555.

These line-drawing problems are the inevitable result of the majority's ruling, yet never arose under Humphrey's. Today, the majority replaces 90 years of proven, workable practice with a half-baked theory of executive power that is simultaneously all encompassing yet also subject to necessary but undefined exceptions. The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow.

Finally, the majority suggests that Humphrey's has been “undermined” by later cases. Ante , at 448, 451. That is incorrect. See supra, at 486–487 (collecting cases reaffirming Humphrey's). Morrison did not “ `repudiat[e]' ” Humphrey's. Ante , at 448. It extended its holding to uphold removal protections for a distinct, inferior officer. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 687–691. The case that Morrison repudiated was Myers. See 487 U. S., at 687 (rejecting “the implication Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Not two years ago, I wrote of a “disconcerting trend” in this Court's cases: “When it comes to the separation of powers, this Court tells the American public and its coordinate branches that it knows best.” SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U. S. 109, 201 (2024) (dissenting opinion). Matters that for centuries had been left to the political branches have been subordinated, one after another, to this recent Court's rigid theories of how Government should operate. See id., at 201–202 (collecting cases).

The majority's decision continuing that trend today is egregiously wrong. In this case, the Court takes one of the oldest debates in American history and decides that the six Justices in the majority, alone, ought to be the ones to settle it for all time. That decision does not just overrule precedent; it all but ignores that precedent exists. It does not just hamstring the political branches' ability to respond to new challenges; it rewinds the clock nearly 150 years, holding that a common agency structure is, and always has been, forbidden. It is true that today's decision does not eliminate the FTC or the many other agencies whose structures are implicated by overruling Humphrey's. It is undeniable, however, that those agencies will be transformed in ways that those who created them never could have expected and actively sought to avoid, fundamentally recalibrating the balance of power in this country in the process. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to ft the majority's theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before. It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him. In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty. I respectfully dissent. Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication

The attached opinion has been revised to refect the usual publication and citation style of the United States Reports. The revised pagination makes available the official United States Reports citation in advance of publication. The syllabus has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader and constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court. A list of counsel who argued or filed briefs in this case, and who were members of the bar of this Court at the time this case was argued, has been inserted following the syllabus. Other revisions may include adjustments to formatting, captions, citation form, and any errant punctuation. The following additional edits were made: p. 487, line 6: “was” is changed to “were” p. 514, line 7: “the” is changed to “this” p. 517, line 18: “upon” is changed to “on” p. 521, line 4 from bottom: “officers” is deleted

Page Proof Pending Publication

Page Proof Pending Publication