John Roberts’ Decades-Long Push to Overturn Humphrey’s Executor
John Roberts fought for decades to overturn – Chief Justice John Roberts has long championed a robust presidential authority, advocating for the leader of the nation to wield unchecked power over independent agencies. This vision, which he has pursued for more than 40 years, reached a pivotal moment as he guided the Supreme Court in reversing a landmark 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that had previously granted Congress the ability to constrain the president’s firing power. The ruling, delivered on Monday, marked a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Roberts’ journey began in the Reagan administration, where he served as a young lawyer. He later wrote a 1983 memo to White House counsel arguing that the system of independent agencies created a “constitutional anomaly” by limiting presidential control. Upon his 2005 appointment as chief justice, he began systematically challenging the Court’s past decisions, aiming to dismantle the framework that allowed Congress to restrict the president’s ability to remove agency heads.
“Without such power, the President could not be held fully accountable for discharging his own responsibilities; the buck would stop somewhere else,” Roberts wrote in a 2010 case, emphasizing his belief in a strong executive branch.
His strategy has unfolded across multiple rulings, including a 2024 decision that granted former President Trump broad immunity from criminal charges. In that case, Roberts and his conservative allies framed the president’s authority as essential for swift decision-making. The same approach has been applied to independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which he has sought to weaken through repeated legal challenges.
Independent regulatory agencies play a critical role in shaping American life, from enforcing consumer protections to ensuring workplace safety. Roberts has argued that the Constitution’s structure empowers the president with “the executive Power” of the United States, unchallenged by the other branches. “Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one President,” he stated in his 36-page opinion, asserting that the president must have the final say in administrative matters.
Roberts’ efforts to expand presidential power mirror his work to undermine the Voting Rights Act. By securing a 6-3 conservative majority through strategic appointments, he has been able to roll back protections for minority voters and reshape the legal landscape. This pattern of influence has now extended to the regulatory sphere, where the FTC and similar agencies are central to maintaining fair practices and public oversight.
Legacy of Firing Power and Regulatory Control
Historically, independent agencies were designed to operate with some autonomy, allowing commissioners to serve without undue presidential pressure. Congressional legislation established these bodies with terms defined as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” ensuring they could act as checks on executive overreach. However, Roberts’ reversal of the 1935 precedent has opened the door for the president to remove agency heads at will, effectively eroding that safeguard.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, highlighted the risks of this shift. She warned that the decision elevates the president above the “once-coequal branches” of government, transforming the “duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed” into a tool for defiance. “The Court gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown,” she wrote, underscoring the historical significance of the ruling.
Recent actions, such as Trump’s attempt to replace FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter during her seven-year term, exemplify Roberts’ vision in practice. By weakening the legal barriers to presidential control, the chief justice has positioned the executive as the central force in governance, reshaping the role of independent agencies in the process.
