The Supreme Court has issued two major separation-of-powers decisions involving independent federal agencies. One case, Trump v. Slaughter, dismantles the removal protections that have kept federal agencies like the NLRB insulated from presidential control for almost a century. In the other case, Trump v. Cook, the Court carved out a narrow exception for the Federal Reserve.
Together, these cases suggest that the days of a truly independent National Labor Relations Board are finished. Gwynne Wilcox’s merry-go-round of removal, reinstatement, and removal could also finally be over.
Humphrey’s Executor Is Gone
For 91 years, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States provided certain protections for independent agencies. The Court had held that Congress could shield agency members from presidential removal without cause, at least when those agencies performed “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions rather than purely executive ones. This led to more stability for the NLRB, the FTC, and similar agencies.
Yet in Trump v. Slaughter, which concerns Trump’s firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor and held that the FTC’s for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that when an agency “executes a congressional mandate against private parties, it exercises executive power — no ifs, ands, or quasis about it.”
Roberts was equally dismissive of Humphrey’s staying power while pointing out that the Court had applied it only once since 1935, and “since then, we have undermined Humphrey’s premises at every turn.” He concluded that Humphrey’s “would require us to depart from almost every case on the subject we have decided since” and that “no one knows how to apply Humphrey’s in practice.” The majority viewed that case as precedent that had already collapsed on its own.
Meanwhile, the NLRB carries out federal labor law against private parties. It processes unfair labor practice charges, handles representation elections, and issues binding orders upon employers. Under Slaughter, there’s no doubt that this is executive power.
Furthermore, Slaughter does not address the status of dismissed NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox, but Justice Sotomayor’s dissent makes mention of how the Board received its own removal protections “[w]ithin weeks of Humphrey’s being decided.” Roberts specified that “our opinion today should not be read” to apply to other agencies, making it hard to see how NLRB member removal protections could survive this ruling.
The Federal Reserve Got A Carveout That The NLRB Did Not
In Trump v. Cook, the Court ruled that the Federal Reserve’s for-cause removal protection is constitutional, so member Lisa Cook gets to keep her job. Roberts explained the Fed’s protected status as owing to a “distinct historical tradition,” which goes back to the late 1700s and protects monetary policy from political interference.
Whereas the NLRB was created in 1935 to govern private-sector labor relations through the NLRA, so the Board simply can’t claim to have a historical tradition similar to the Federal Reserve.
What This Means for Gwynne Wilcox
Former NLRB member Wilcox has been in legal limbo since early 2025, when President Trump fired her without citing a reason. The Supreme Court issued a temporary stay in Trump v. Wilcox, which allowed her removal to stand during ongoing litigation about whether the NLRB’s statutory removal protection would stand.
Although the Supreme Court hasn’t explicitly answered that question with Slaughter, there does not appear to be a realistic path for Gwynne Wilcox’s reinstatement to the NLRB.
Instability Ahead For Employers
The Supreme Court’s rulings about at-will removal do more than address the current makeup of the FTC, NLRB, and other agencies that don’t have the Federal Reserve carveout. By eliminating removal protections, the Court has made it just as easy for a future Democratic administration to oust Board members.
So although the Federal Reserve gets to keep its independence, the NLRB does not. For that reason, employers cannot assume that complying with current Board policies will protect against future liability, or that labor law will hold steady. These rulings tell us nothing about what the current Board will do next and plenty about how unpredictable a future Board could be.
FAQs
What did the Supreme Court decide in Trump v. Slaughter?
The Supreme Court overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, holding that the FTC’s for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional. The ruling establishes that agencies executing congressional mandates against private parties exercise executive power, and their leaders must be removable by the President at-will.
Can the President now fire NLRB members at-will?
Almost certainly yes. The NLRB exercises executive power under the same framework the Court applied in Trump v. Slaughter, and the statutory provision protecting NLRB members from removal except for neglect of duty or malfeasance almost certainly cannot survive this ruling.
Will Gwynne Wilcox be reinstated to the NLRB?
It appears unlikely. Wilcox’s reinstatement claims rested on the same constitutional foundation the Court just dismantled in Trump v. Slaughter. Her case will almost certainly be remanded, and there does not appear to be a realistic legal path to reinstatement.
