Blogs

Trump v. Slaughter: What employers need to know about the Supreme Court’s latest agency-power decision

7/10/26

By: Sunshine Fellows

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter is not an employment law case. It does not change employers’ obligations under federal employment laws. What it may change is how federal agencies enforce those laws.

The decision gives the President greater authority over officials who lead federal agencies and continues the Court’s broader effort to limit the independence of administrative agencies. For employers, that could mean quicker shifts in enforcement priorities, leadership changes, and regulatory policy when administrations change.

What the Court decided

In a 6-3 decision issued on June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that Congress generally cannot restrict the President’s authority to remove officials who exercise executive power. In doing so, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 decision that had protected Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners from removal except for specific reasons.

Although the case involved the FTC, the Court’s reasoning could affect other agencies structured similarly. The full scope of the decision will likely be determined through future litigation.

Why employers should care

Many workplace laws are enforced by federal agencies rather than courts. As a result, changes in how those agencies are governed can have real consequences for employers. Two agencies are particularly worth watching.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

The EEOC is led by commissioners who serve staggered terms and traditionally operate with some degree of independence from the White House.

Following Trump v. Slaughter, removal protections for EEOC commissioners could face constitutional challenges. If courts extend the decision to the EEOC, future Presidents may have greater authority to reshape the Commission’s leadership and enforcement agenda more quickly.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

The NLRB is another likely target for similar challenges. If its removal protections are weakened, employers could see faster turnover in Board leadership, more rapid changes in labor policy, and quicker reversals of precedent when administrations change.

Importantly, none of these changes happen automatically because of Trump v. Slaughter. The decision simply provides a stronger constitutional basis for challenges to the independence of other agencies.

Expect faster shifts in enforcement priorities

The biggest takeaway for employers is not that workplace laws are changing. It is that enforcement priorities may change more rapidly. If agency leaders can be replaced more easily, employers should anticipate:

• More frequent leadership changes at federal agencies;
• Faster shifts in enforcement priorities;
• More revisions to agency guidance and regulations;
• Changes in government litigation strategies; and
• Greater uncertainty during presidential transitions.

The underlying laws, however, remain the same. Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and other federal employment statutes are still fully enforceable regardless of who leads the agencies.

Practical steps for employers

The Supreme Court has increasingly scrutinized the authority of administrative agencies and emphasized the importance of statutory text. Employers should expect courts, not agencies, to play an increasingly important role in defining workplace compliance obligations. In that environment, employers should:

• Monitor developments involving the EEOC, NLRB, and other enforcement agencies;
• Distinguish between legal requirements and nonbinding agency guidance;
• Regularly review workplace policies and compliance practices;
• Continue management and employee training on key employment laws; and
• Evaluate major employment decisions based on statutory requirements and court decisions, not solely on current agency positions.

Bottom line

Trump v. Slaughter does not change employers’ legal obligations. It does, however, signal that federal employment agencies may become more politically responsive and less insulated from presidential control.

For employers, the practical lesson is simple: expect more movement in enforcement priorities, but keep your compliance efforts grounded in the actual requirements of federal employment laws. Those requirements remain the most reliable guide in an increasingly dynamic regulatory environment.

For more information on this topic, please contact Sunshine Fellows or your local FMG relationship partner.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.