By Sarah Snell Cooke, Founder/CEO, The Credit Union Connection
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case of fired NCUA board members Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka on Nov. 24, 2025, according to Law360, leaving the regulatory fate of the nation’s credit union regulator hanging in constitutional limbo for the moment.
Harper and Otsuka, the two Democratic board members President Trump fired without cause in April, had asked SCOTUS to take up their case on an expedited basis alongside the similar challenge from fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. The Court agreed to hear Slaughter’s case in December. SCOTUS seems to want to resolve the broader constitutional question about independent agencies before addressing the NCUA’s specific situation. The outcome could set precedent for the NCUA.
What the Experts Are Saying
Credit union attorney Henry Meier put it bluntly. “The Supreme Court decision to deny the petition just confirms what we already suspected: The outcome of Trump v. Slaughter will, in all likelihood, determine NCUA’s fate as an independent agency.” So-called independent agencies, like the NCUA, were not supposed to be as influenced by politics as other agencies. The NCUA and FDIC, for example, are both independent agencies to help maintain stability in banking for consumers.
In other words, everything hinges on what happens in the Slaughter case in December.
Ann Petros, vice president for Policy Engagement & Credit Union Operations for America’s Credit Unions, confirmed the group is tracking the case closely. She explained that Trump v. Slaughter “directly challenges the decades-old precedent set in Humphrey’s Executor,” which was a 1935 case that established limits on the President’s ability to remove heads of independent agencies.
“It is widely anticipated that the Supreme Court will be very critical of Humphrey’s Executor, and may just outright overturn that decision,” Ann noted. “It has slowly been chipping away at that principle and standard over the years now, including with Seila Law on the CFPB single director structure and the Collins v. Yellen case on the FHFA single director structure.”
Defense Credit Union Council President/CEO Anthony Hernandez emphasized the uncertainty facing credit unions that serve military communities: “The Supreme Court’s decision to pause action on the Harper/Otsuka case while proceeding with oral arguments in the Humphrey’s Executor challenge highlights that the future structure and leadership of the NCUA Board remain uncertain and continue to evolve.”
“For credit unions serving military families, veterans, and DoD communities, regulatory stability remains important,” he added. “Regardless of potential changes involving individual board members, DCUC is focused on ensuring that any future appointments or administrative actions support NCUA’s independence, mission clarity, and its ability to maintain a strong and competitive credit union system.”
What’s the best outcome for credit unions?
When asked about the best outcome for credit unions, Ann stated, “We support an independent NCUA with a full three-member board.” She emphasized that America’s Credit Unions wants “to ensure that there is consistency, predictability and stability for credit unions and a federal regulator in the NCUA… whatever that looks like.”
The stakes are significant. If the Supreme Court overturns Humphrey’s Executor, she explained, “this decision could fundamentally change the administrative state and what we understand to be independent agencies. That’s a new world that we’re stepping into that we have to understand and navigate.”
When pressed on whether America’s Credit Unions prefers that the President not be able to remove board members without cause, America’s Credit Unions, via Ann, reiterated that the association declined to take a position on that point. “When we talk about independence, I think we’re primarily referring to a separate regulator for credit unions, not something that’s rolled into the FDIC or the banking regulators.”
It’s not in black and white
The Trump administration’s argument is straightforward: The Federal Credit Union Act doesn’t explicitly state that NCUA board members can be removed only “for cause,” and therefore the President can fire them at will. Never mind that Congress deliberately restructured the NCUA in 1978 to create fixed six-year terms specifically to insulate board members from political pressure.
A federal district court sided with Harper and Otsuka, ruling their firings were unlawful. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed that ruling while the case proceeds. And now SCOTUS has decided to let the appeals process play out while it tackles the bigger question in Trump v. Slaughter.
The broader implication? If SCOTUS rules that the President has unfettered authority to fire independent agency board members, it doesn’t just affect the NCUA. It could reach the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the SEC, and every other multi-member independent agency.
As Harper himself noted back in October, “If these powers are constitutionally suspect in the hands of the NCUA Board, they would be equally so in the hands of the Federal Reserve Board.”
What’s next?
The Trump v. Slaughter oral arguments in December will be a must-watch case for anyone who cares about regulatory independence, and that means credit unions. SCOTUS’ decision in that case will almost certainly determine whether Harper and Otsuka have any shot at reinstatement.
If SCOTUS rules that the President can fire independent agency board members at will, Harper and Otsuka’s case is effectively over. If the Court upholds for-cause protections, their lawsuit gets new life, but even then, the NCUA’s lack of explicit statutory language creates complications.
The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think
This case isn’t only about two fired board members or even about the NCUA specifically; it’s about whether Congress can create genuinely independent regulators or they are thinly veiled, regular old agencies.
Credit unions, members and consumers have historically benefited from having a regulator that’s insulated from political winds. The cooperative model works best when overseen by an agency that can take a long-term view rather than responding to whoever occupies the White House (although they often do).
If the Supreme Court greenlights presidential control over independent agency leadership, that stability goes out the window. And with it, the regulatory predictability that credit unions rely on.
As Anthony said, “DCUC will continue to advocate for stable, mission-driven leadership at NCUA on behalf of all credit unions as developments unfold.”
What’s your take on the NCUA board situation? Drop your thoughts in the comments below.
1 thought on “SCOTUS Passes on Removed NCUA Board Members’ Case and What That Means for the Agency’s Future”
NCUA has been on the *wrong track* for decades, at least from the perspective of small CUs like me. I have over 20-years managing small CUs, and NCUA examinations have just been getting more punitive and inane, year after year, with a “one size fits all” burden that is driving our small CUs out of business. So… I am hopeful that Harper and Otsuka don’t get reinstated, I much prefer the leadership of Chairman Kyle Hauptman – he is cutting the budget, reducing the subjectivity, and seems to be prioritizing the survival of small CUs, in a way the previous board was not.
Doug Wadsworth
President of Tri-CU Credit Union
President of the Endangered Small CU Defense