New Bill of Rights

Candidate category · Regime-coded; forward-looking re-poll

FCC and independent-agency independence

Opposing the 2026 decision that ended for-cause removal protection drew 42% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats (Marquette, 2026), down from 54% of Republicans in prospective wording nine weeks earlier; awaiting a forward-looking re-poll.

Under consideration since 2026-08-06. A candidate is neither accepted nor rejected — it is waiting on evidence against the full-spectrum test. What we know, what we don't, and what would move it are below.

The proposal

The category carries the FCC’s name, but the commission is the example, not the proposal. The idea is general: an amendment to Article II stating that Congress may create offices — regulatory commissioners, inspectors general — whose holders the President cannot remove without cause. Variants range from bare authorization (Congress may set removal conditions) to entrenchment (fixed terms and a for-cause standard in the text) to a Senate-concurrence check no national poll has asked. Threatening broadcast licenses over coverage is a First Amendment question, not a removal question; no variant touches it. Our executive-compliance amendment already covers obeying a court order that reinstates a removed officer, not whether the removal was lawful. Whether Congress may insulate an office at all is the remainder measured here.

The evidence

Told that in June 2026 the Supreme Court had “overruled a 1935 precedent and held that federal laws barring the president from removing members of federal regulatory agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission, except for cause, violate the constitutional separation of powers,” 49% of adults favored the decision and 51% opposed it. Opposing it — the pro-insulation answer — drew 42% of Republicans, 50% of independents, and 61% of Democrats (Marquette Law School Poll, July 2026).1

Democrats: 61% 61% Dem Republicans: 42% 42% Rep Independents: 50% 50% Ind bipartisan floor · 42% (Republicans)
Oppose the Court's decision ending for-cause removal protection for members of federal regulatory agencies — Marquette Law School Poll, 2026

Nine weeks earlier the same pollster asked prospectively whether statutes may limit removal from independent regulatory agencies to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”: 73% said yes — 54% of Republicans, 72% of independents, 93% of Democrats (Marquette, May 2026).2 The same wording in the future tense drew 71% in November 2025, but only the topline was published, so that reading carries no verdict here.3

  • Speech abuse, a proxy. 68% called it unacceptable “for the government to pressure broadcasters to remove shows that include speech it disagrees with” — 42% of Republicans, 74% of independents, 88% of Democrats (The Economist/YouGov, 2025).4
  • Legal record. The June 29, 2026 decision (6–3) held the FTC’s for-cause provision “contrary to the separation of powers” and overruled Humphrey’s Executor (1935), leaving aside entities that exercise no executive power, the Federal Reserve among them.56 The same day, a different majority blocked the removal of a Federal Reserve governor on statutory grounds, not constitutional ones.7

Where it stands

The bipartisan floor is 42% of Republicans (Marquette, July 2026): Weak. The prior reading, in prospective wording, was 54% (Marquette, May 2026): Moderate. Neither approaches Strong.

  • Support moves with the case’s resolution and the wording — the controlling open test. Republican support fell from 54% to 42% and Democratic support from 93% to 61% in nine weeks as the case resolved, when only 20% had heard “a lot” about the decision1 — both parties moving toward the decided case. Endorsing a decision is not predicting a ruling; how much of the move tracks who holds the office is the open question. The same pattern holds civil servant independence as a candidate.
  • High topline, low floor; framing dependency — apply. May’s 73% concealed a 39-point party gap; wording moves the Republican reading between 42% and 55%.
  • Abuse-vs-remedy gap — at risk. The remedy’s 51% topline sits 17 points below the 68% who find pressuring broadcasters unacceptable — and the two measure different things. A clause restoring removal protection at the FCC would not stop a licensing threat, and a clause barring retaliatory licensing would be a First Amendment provision no polling here tests. The category’s most popular fact is not evidence for its actual proposal.
  • Depth — untested; no poll has named the costs of insulation or of at-will removal. Staleness — cleared; the data are eight weeks old.
  • Existential-problem test — open. For: agencies over elections, licensing, securities, and monetary policy now serve at will, and the instrument that removes an officer can also reach the entity’s regulated conduct. Against: peer democracies solve this design question many ways, and Congress keeps its other tools — 55% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats say it can take back delegated power (Marquette, July 2026).8
  • Symmetry test — passes by construction. Both parties’ removals are in the record: the 2026 removal at the FTC and attempted removal at the Fed,57 and a Democratic president’s 1935 removal of a Republican-appointed FTC commissioner.6
  • Why-an-amendment test — passes, as of June 29, 2026. Before the decision a statute could do this job; after it, re-enacting the FTC standard would re-enact a provision held unconstitutional. The category’s why-an-amendment answer is now stronger than its polling.

Framings we tested

None clears the bar. All are Marquette Law School Poll, July 2026, unless noted.8

  • Favor the Court’s refusal to lift an order blocking removal of a Federal Reserve governor: 51% of Republicans, 67% of independents, 91% of Democrats9 — Moderate, the highest Republican reading of any insulation item, inside the same survey that read the FTC question at 42% — and an institution the Court has already carved out.
  • The next president should be less able to make policy without congressional authorization: 55% of Republicans, 91% of Democrats — Moderate, and a different proposal: executive action without statutory authority, not protection of an officer.
  • The next president should have less control over federal departments and agencies: 20% of Republicans choose “less,” 55% “about as much as today,” 72% of Democrats choose “less” — Weak, the lowest Republican reading in the set.
  • Congress has given up too many of its powers to the president: 52% of Republicans, 85% of Democrats — Moderate, and a diagnosis rather than a remedy.
  • Pressuring broadcasters is unacceptable: 42% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats (The Economist/YouGov, 2025) — Weak despite a 68% topline.

What would move it

In: an independent national poll fielded no earlier than 2027, asking the remedy in forward-looking, both-parties, mechanism-specific wording — “Should the Constitution be amended to say that Congress may set fixed terms for members of federal regulatory commissions and may require a stated cause before any president removes them — a rule applying to every future president of either party?” — with a Republican floor at or above 60% that holds at least Moderate under a costs-named follow-up. A cross-party roll call restoring for-cause protection, with majorities of both House caucuses, would also count.

Out: a second independent reading with the Republican floor at or below 42% in prospective wording would fail the category on regime coding and high topline, low floor. If a re-poll lifts the floor only for the Federal Reserve, the finding is a consensus about central banking, not agency independence, and the category would close on it.

Sources

  1. “In June, the Supreme Court overruled a 1935 precedent and held that federal laws barring the president from removing members of federal regulatory agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission, except for cause, violate the constitutional separation of powers. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?” — 49% favor / 51% oppose; favor 58% R / 50% I / 38% D (R strongly/somewhat favor 16/42; D 18/20); 20% had heard “a lot” about the decision, 37% nothing at all; n=1,076 adults, SSRS Opinion Panel, ±3.2, July 22–29, 2026 — Marquette Law School Poll, Court topics release; crosstabs. ↩ ↩2

  2. “By federal statute, individuals appointed to serve on independent, multi-member regulatory agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission, can be removed only for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.’ The Supreme Court has heard arguments in a case asking whether such Congressional requirements for removal infringe on the president’s executive power. How do you think the Supreme Court should rule?” — 73% statutes can set removal requirements / 27% the president has the power; 54% R / 72% I / 93% D; Federal Reserve: 66% say the president may not remove Fed governors, 60% of Republicans say he has that authority; n=1,001, ±3.4, May 20–26, 2026 — Marquette Law School Poll, Court issues release; crosstabs. ↩

  3. Identical wording to the May 2026 question, asked in the future tense: 71% say statutory protections should be allowed / 29% say the president may remove; n=1,052, ±3.3, Nov. 5–12, 2025 — Marquette Law School Poll, November 2025 Court release. The release publishes only the topline; the November crosstab file is no longer served at a resolvable URL, so no party split is used from this wave. ↩

  4. “Do you think it is acceptable or unacceptable for the government to pressure broadcasters to remove shows that include speech it disagrees with?” — 13% acceptable / 68% unacceptable / 19% not sure; unacceptable 42% R / 74% I / 88% D; 30% of Republicans acceptable, 28% not sure; n=1,551 adult citizens, Sept. 19–22, 2025 — The Economist/YouGov, toplines and crosstabs, item 7. ↩

  5. Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, argued Dec. 8, 2025, decided June 29, 2026 (6–3): the FTC’s for-cause removal provision “is contrary to the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution,” and “if anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it”; the syllabus reserves entities exercising no executive power — “One example the Court has given of such an entity is the Federal Reserve, to the extent that it follows in the tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States” — and tenure protections for non-Article III judges — Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinion. ↩ ↩2

  6. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), the founding case of the for-cause doctrine, arising from a Democratic president’s removal of a Republican-appointed FTC commissioner — Cornell LII; confined to multimember expert bodies, with single-head agencies removable at will, in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) — Cornell LII. ↩ ↩2

  7. Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312, argued Jan. 21, 2026, decided June 29, 2026: stay denied by a five-justice majority different from the Slaughter majority; the Court read the Federal Reserve Act’s “cause” against the common law, held the determination judicially reviewable, and required notice and an opportunity to respond before removal, reasoning that “any definition of ‘cause’ in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role” — Supreme Court of the United States, slip opinion. ↩ ↩2

  8. Next president should have more / less / about as much control over federal departments and agencies: 18% / 45% / 36%; R 25/20/55, I 21/46/33, D 9/72/18. Next president should be less able to make policy without congressional authorization: 73%; 55% R / 78% I / 91% D. Congress has given up too many powers: 69%; 52% R / 77% I / 85% D. Congress can take those powers back: 58%; 55% R / 54% I / 63% D. July 22–29, 2026 — Marquette Law School Poll, Court topics release. ↩ ↩2

  9. “In June, the Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s request to overturn a lower court order that prevented him from removing a member of the Federal Reserve board of governors” — 70% favor; 51% R / 67% I / 91% D; July 22–29, 2026 — Marquette Law School Poll, Court topics release. ↩

← All candidates