Labor & Employment Law Update

A major Supreme Court decision could reshape how federal workplace agencies operate and how quickly their priorities can change from one administration to the next.

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court overruled a 91-year-old precedent and held that the president may remove the heads of independent federal agencies at will.

Although Trump v. Slaughter focuses on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), its impact could extend to the agencies employers face every day, including the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

While the decision does not change any labor or employment laws, it could change who controls the agencies that enforce them. For employers, that means greater uncertainty and potentially more dramatic shifts in enforcement.

What Happened in Trump v. Slaughter?

The Court considered whether FTC commissioners may be removed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. It held in a 6-3 decision that this job protection was unconstitutional. The majority reasoned that because the FTC “unquestionably exercises executive power,” its principal officers must answer to the president, who must be able to remove them.

The Court overturned the precedent that previously shielded independent agencies since the New Deal, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The majority left no doubt about its position, stating: “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”

What This Means for Workplace Enforcement

Although the ruling was about the FTC, the NLRB and EEOC are similar in structure and in their protections against member removal. The Court’s reasoning in Slaughter suggests agencies exercising significant executive authority may no longer be able to shield their leaders from presidential removal.

As a result, future challenges to the independence of the NLRB and EEOC may have a much stronger chance of succeeding.

The practical effect of the Court ultimately applying the same reasoning to the NLRB and EEOC is faster swings: A president could reconstitute the Board and the Commission without waiting out fixed terms, which will cut both ways: doctrines that moved against employers under a prior Board become vulnerable to quick reversal, and the next administration can reverse them right back.

What Has Not Changed for the NLRB and EEOC

The Court's decision addressed only the question of removal protections for agency leaders, and did not change or substantively alter the makeup or mission of any federal agency.

Takeaways for Employers Following Trump v. Slaughter

1. Preserve the objection. Employers in pending NLRB or other agency proceedings should raise and preserve removal-based separation-of-powers objections. Even where they do not produce an immediate off-ramp, failing to raise them can forfeit the argument on appeal.
2. Expect and plan for sharper policy swings. With agency composition subject to direct presidential control, Board and Commission policy will shift faster with each election. Build compliance positions that hold regardless of which party’s Board is in power, rather than ones that depend on the current majority.
3. Treat agency guidance as provisional. Guidance can change quickly when a Commission answers directly to the president. The EEOC has already begun reshaping its enforcement posture, and one removed Commissioner dropped her own challenge after Slaughter as no longer viable. Anchor compliance to the statute and caselaw, not to a guidance document that may not survive the next administration.
4. Watch remedies for retroactivity risk. If Board action taken during a period of contested structure is later challenged, remedies imposed now, including reinstatement, backpay, and bargaining orders, may be vulnerable. Do not assume current Board orders are bulletproof.