WASHINGTON—As the Supreme Court considers whether to take up the removal case involving former NCUA Board Members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka, America’s Credit Unions is warning that a ruling expanding presidential authority over independent regulators could trigger policy whiplash across the financial services system.
The trade group said the case—now seeking expedited review alongside Trump v. Slaughter—raises the risk of politicizing NCUA oversight and undermining the stability provided by its three-member bipartisan board structure.
Ann Petros
As CUToday.info reported, the legal challenge filed by Harper and Otsuka over their removal from the NCUA board has advanced, with the pair submitting a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. They are asking the Court to take up their case and to consider it on an expedited basis, alongside the Trump v. Slaughter case.
The Trump v. Slaughter case involves two Democratic commissioners removed earlier this year from the Federal Trade Commission. That case directly challenges the 1935 Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States — a landmark decision that established limits on a president’s ability to remove independent agency officials.
The Trump v. Slaughter Supreme Court case could open the door to overturning Humphrey’s Executor. Oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter are expected to take place in December, and Harper and Otsuka are hoping their case will be consolidated with it.
Their former NCUA board members’ petition argues that the NCUA’s structure and mission closely mirror those of other independent financial regulators such as the FTC and FDIC, with a long-standing tradition of operational independence from the executive branch. While the Federal Credit Union Act does not contain the same explicit “for cause” removal protections found in other statutes, the petition contends that the agency’s historical role and governance framework merit the same legal treatment.
Ann Petros, ACU vice president of policy engagement and credit union operations, noted that if the Supreme Court consolidates the cases, a ruling could come as soon as early spring or by June 2026, when the Court typically issues its final decisions for the term.
For now, the NCUA continues to operate, and the agency has emphasized that its independence remains intact. Still, this development could have significant implications for the future structure and autonomy of independent regulatory agencies, Petros said.
America’s Credit Unions has expressed concern that if the Supreme Court rules against the Slaughter and NCUA cases—effectively giving the president full authority to remove independent agency officials—it could trigger dramatic regulatory swings from one administration to the next, Petros said.
“That’s a major concern we hear frequently from our member credit unions,” she explained.
Petros added that it’s already been seen how having a single agency head, as in some other regulators, can lead to a pendulum effect—policies shifting sharply depending on which party holds the White House.
“That kind of instability can potentially make it more difficult for regulations and supervisory activity to move forward,” Petros said. “So, we want clarity and stability and certainty for the industry.”