Supreme Court decision puts FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez’s tenure in question

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 91-year-old precedent Monday, giving the president broader authority to remove officials at independent regulatory agencies and raising questions about the tenure of Democratic FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez.

The 6-3 decision in Trump v. Slaughter reversed and remanded a lower-court judgment that had reinstated Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter after Donald Trump removed her in March 2025 without citing a statutory cause.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said the FTC’s removal protections violated the constitutional separation of powers because the agency exercises executive authority that must remain under presidential control.

“Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him,” Roberts wrote.

The ruling overturned Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 decision that had allowed Congress to protect certain independent-agency officials from removal without cause.

The decision could have direct implications for Gomez, who has frequently criticized FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s positions on broadcast licensing, press freedom and content oversight. Gomez has said publicly that she would challenge an attempt to remove her before the end of her term.

“For nearly a century, the FCC’s credibility as an expert-driven regulatory body has been a cornerstone of American leadership in global communications. When we negotiate spectrum agreements with foreign governments and international bodies, our counterparts trust that our positions reflect technical expertise and legal authority, not the political preferences of whoever occupies the White House at a given moment,” said Gomez in a statement. “When commissioners can be removed for their policy views rather than for cause, the inevitable result is an agency that pulls its punches and defers to political winds rather than the record before it. Consumers pay the price for that kind of regulatory timidity in higher costs, fewer choices, and slower progress toward the connected future this country deserves.”

Unlike the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Communications Act does not expressly limit the president’s authority to remove FCC commissioners. The court’s decision also weakened the constitutional basis for a potential legal challenge to such a removal.

Advertisement

Gomez’s term expires July 1. Under the Communications Act, she may remain in office until the Senate confirms a successor.

Removing Gomez before a successor is seated could create an operational problem for the FCC.

The commission currently has three members: Carr, Gomez and Commissioner Olivia Trusty. Gomez’s departure would leave two commissioners, below the three-member quorum generally required to conduct agency business.

The FCC is considering several matters affecting broadcasters, including ownership regulations and licensing proceedings involving ABC affiliates owned by The Walt Disney Co.

Carr told senators in December 2025 that the FCC was “not formally an independent agency” because the president could remove its commissioners.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority had departed from longstanding political practice and expanded presidential control over agencies that Congress designed to operate with some independence.

“Today, the Court discards” the constitutional system “in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a separate concurrence warning that Congress had delegated substantial legislative and judicial authority to independent agencies on the assumption that they would remain insulated from presidential control.

The court excluded the Federal Reserve from the ruling, citing the central bank’s distinct historical structure.

Whether the Trump administration moves to remove Gomez before a successor is confirmed is now largely a political and operational decision, with any action potentially affecting the FCC’s ability to maintain a quorum.

Full statement from Gomez:

“This decision puts at risk how Congress intended independent agencies to function in American democracy. When Congress established the Federal Communications Commission, it made a deliberate choice to create a multi-member, multi-party, independent body insulated from political pressure precisely because the decisions this agency makes about who can speak over the public airwaves, how spectrum is allocated, and how communications markets are regulated, are too consequential to be made on the basis of political loyalty. We are already seeing what political control of this agency looks like in practice, through investigations targeting broadcasters and government critics for coverage this administration finds unfavorable.

“In a companion decision, the Court protected the Federal Reserve from political interference while leaving media regulators exposed. Democracy depends on a free press and the preservation of free expression through all communication technologies as much as it depends on a stable economy.

Advertisement

“For nearly a century, the FCC’s credibility as an expert-driven regulatory body has been a cornerstone of American leadership in global communications. When we negotiate spectrum agreements with foreign governments and international bodies, our counterparts trust that our positions reflect technical expertise and legal authority, not the political preferences of whoever occupies the White House at a given moment. That credibility is difficult to build and easy to destroy, and the uncertainty created by this decision puts it at risk in ways that will reverberate far beyond our borders.

“The potential consequences for consumers and for American innovation are just as serious. Independent agencies exist to make decisions based on facts and the law. Those who argue these agencies are unaccountable misunderstand how they were designed, as the FCC answers to Congress, the democratically elected body that created it, through oversight, appropriations, and legislation. When commissioners can be removed for their policy views rather than for cause, the inevitable result is an agency that pulls its punches and defers to political winds rather than the record before it. Consumers pay the price for that kind of regulatory timidity in higher costs, fewer choices, and slower progress toward the connected future this country deserves.

“Protecting consumers, promoting competitive innovation, and defending free expression are at the heart of my work at the Commission, and I intend to keep doing that work for as long as I am able to serve.”