Supreme Court Holds That President May Remove FTC Commissioner Without Cause but Must Have Cause to Remove Fed Governor

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that the President has the constitutional authority to remove an FTC commissioner without cause but lacks the constitutional authority to remove a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System without cause and without notice and an opportunity to respond.

In January 2025, the President removed two FTC commissioners from their offices without identifying any cause as required by the FTC Act.  Instead, he stated that the commissioners’ “continued service on the FTC [was] inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities” and that he had removed them “pursuant to [his] authority under Article II of the Constitution.”

One removed commissioner sued the President (and other executive branch officials) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that her removal violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.  The district court agreed and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting interference with the commissioner’s “right to perform her lawful duties.”  In so acting, the court relied on longstanding Supreme Court precedent holding that, unlike other executive officers, FTC commissioners may be removed only for cause.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case before the Court of Appeals could render a decision on the merits and reversed.  As the Court reasoned, the President must retain the ability to remove executive officers without cause so that these officers remain accountable to the President in carrying out his constitutional obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  In so holding, the Court overruled its prior precedent holding to the contrary in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.

Conversely, the Supreme Court declined to stay the D.C. federal court’s injunction prohibiting the President from removing a member of the Federal Reserve Board.  In August 2025, the President purported to remove one member for cause — a determination that he claimed was unreviewable and committed to his sole discretion under the Federal Reserve Act.

Yet as the Court observed, this interpretation (which is unsupported by the statute’s text) would effectively enable removal of a member of the Federal Reserve Board without cause.  Unlike with multimember independent commissions (such as the FTC), the Court explained, the U.S. has a long tradition of independent central banking, which precedes even the Constitution.  Thus, the Court held that, consistent with the Constitution, a member of the Board can be removed only for cause and must receive notice and an opportunity to respond.