ANTHILLAsk your own question
Answer · confidence: partial

Which ideas to limit the president's firing power happened or went to court?

Research question: Which of the plan's proposals to limit presidential removal power over independent agency officials have been carried out or ruled on by courts?

The facts do not list the plan's full set of removal-power proposals, but Project 2025's Justice Department chapter urged the next administration to argue that Humphrey's Executor violates the separation of powers, and the administration made that argument in the Wilcox case and then in Trump v. Slaughter 14. In Trump v. Slaughter, decided June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's Executor by a 6–3 vote and held that for-cause removal protections for agency heads exercising executive power violate the separation of powers 911. The Court spared the Federal Reserve from that ruling, and in the companion case Trump v. Cook it refused by a 5–4 vote to let the president remove Lisa Cook while the case returns to lower courts 121516. Other removal challenges show no merits ruling in these records: Dellinger v. Bessent was closed after the petitioner withdrew it 1, Harris v. Bessent was consolidated with Trump v. Wilcox at the Supreme Court 3, and Aviel v. Gor was appealed to the D.C. Circuit 4. The newest fact is dated June 29, 2026, roughly three months before October 2026 9.

Checked 2026-10-19. Only documented and supported facts are used.
Dig deeper on this question

Sources

[1] supported
The Dellinger v. Bessent challenge to the removal of an independent agency official was appealed to the D.C. Circuit and then to the Supreme Court, but the case was closed after the petitioner withdrew it.
"Dellinger v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00385, [ 368 ] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5025 [ 369 ] / 25-5028 [ 370 ] / 25-5052, [ 371 ] appealed to the Supreme Court, Bessent v. Dellinger , 24A790 [ 372 ] (case closed after petitioner withdrew it)"
Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency
[2] supported
In Seila Law v. CFPB (2020), the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the Executive Vesting Clause gives the president alone the entire executive power, which strengthened presidential control over agencies.
"In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Roberts Court held 5–4 that the Executive Vesting Clause gives "the entire 'executive Power' ... to the President alone.""
Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies
[3] supported
The Harris v. Bessent challenge to the removal of an independent agency official was appealed to the Supreme Court, where it was consolidated with Trump v. Wilcox.
"Harris v. Bessent (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00412, [ 375 ] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5055 [ 376 ] and 25-5037, [ 377 ] appealed to the Supreme Court, Bessent v. Harris (consolidated with Trump v. Wilcox )"
Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency
[4] supported
The Aviel v. Gor challenge to the removal of an independent agency head was appealed to the D.C. Circuit.
"Aviel v. Gor (D.D.C.), 1:25-cv-00778, [ 364 ] appealed to the D.C. Cir., 25-5105 [ 365 ]"
Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency
[5] supported
The Court reaffirmed that Humphrey's Executor and Morrison were the only exceptions to the president's removal power.
"The Court reaffirmed that precedents found in Humphrey's Executor and Morrison were the only exceptions to this removal power."
Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies
[6] supported
During Trump's second term, the administration carried out mass firings that included independent agency and oversight board members.
"He undertook mass firings of employees , inspectors general , and independent agency and oversight board members who might obstruct him."
Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies
[7] supported
Legal analysts said these firings set up Supreme Court tests on agencies that Congress had insulated from presidential control.
"Legal analysts said these actions set up Supreme Court tests on agencies Congress insulated from presidential control."
Authoritarianism during the Trump presidencies
[8] supported
The Supreme Court in Trump v. Slaughter overruled Humphrey's Executor, holding that Congress generally cannot shield leaders of executive agencies from presidential removal through for-cause protections.
"In Trump v. Slaughter , the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), holding that Congress generally cannot shield leaders of executive agencies from presidential removal through "for-cause" protections."
Supreme Court’s Trump v. Slaughter Decision Reshapes the Administrative State
[9] supported
In Trump v. Slaughter, a 6-3 Supreme Court majority overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that had allowed Congress to shield certain independent agency commissioners from at-will presidential removal.
"In Trump v. Slaughte r, a 6–3 majority overruled Humphrey’s Executor v. United States"
The End of the Independent Agency: Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey's Executor
[10] supported
The Supreme Court overruled Humphrey's Executor, the 1935 decision that had protected independent agency heads from being fired at a president's whim, by a 6–3 vote.
"On Monday morning, the Supreme Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor , the 1935 decision that for more than 90 years let Congress shield the heads of independent agencies from being fired at a president’s whim. The vote was 6–3."
Trump Just Got the Supreme Court to Do Project 2025 for Him
[11] supported
The Court held that for-cause removal protections for heads of agencies exercising executive power violate the Constitution's separation of powers.
"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, held that for-cause removal protections for the heads of agencies exercising executive power violate the Constitution’s separation of powers."
The End of the Independent Agency: Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey's Executor
[12] supported
The Supreme Court refused, by a 5–4 vote, to let the president remove Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook, keeping her seat while the case returns to lower courts.
"By 5–4, with the chief justice and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the three liberal justices who had just dissented in the FTC case, the court refused to let the president remove Cook from the Federal Reserve."
Trump Just Got the Supreme Court to Do Project 2025 for Him
[13] supported
A district court ordered FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter reinstated under Humphrey's Executor, but the Supreme Court stayed that order, granted certiorari before judgment, and reversed.
"The district court, applying Humphrey’s Executor , ordered her restoration. The Supreme Court stayed that order, granted certiorari before judgment, and reversed."
The End of the Independent Agency: Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey's Executor
[14] supported
Project 2025's Justice Department chapter urged the next administration to argue that Humphrey's Executor violates the separation of powers, and the administration made that argument in the Wilcox case and then in Trump v. Slaughter.
"Within months, the administration made that argument, in Wilcox, then in Trump v. Slaughter , the Federal Trade Commission case the court has now decided."
Trump Just Got the Supreme Court to Do Project 2025 for Him
[15] supported
In the companion case Trump v. Cook, the Court appears to recognize an exception for central banking that insulates the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from presidential removal.
"today’s companion case, Trump v. Cook , appears to recognize an exception — “a special arrangement sanctioned by history” — for central banking that serves to insulate the Federal Reserve Board of Governors from presidential removal."
The End of the Independent Agency: Supreme Court Overrules Humphrey's Executor
[16] supported
The Supreme Court spared the Federal Reserve from the ruling, the one exception it had long flagged, while overruling Humphrey's Executor.
"In a companion case handed down the same hour, the court spared the Federal Reserve, the one exception it had long flagged, and let board member Lisa Cook keep her seat by a 5–4 vote."
Trump Just Got the Supreme Court to Do Project 2025 for Him