Justices signal openness to letting Trump fire independent commissioners after FTC case arguments
The Supreme Court heard Trump v. Slaughter, a challenge to the FTC’s statutory “for‑cause” removal protection after the White House removed Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter by email and a district court ordered her reinstated before the Supreme Court stayed that order and granted review. During arguments conservative justices — citing the FTC’s modern power and questioning Humphrey’s Executor’s relevance — signaled openness to allowing presidents greater unilateral removal authority (as the Solicitor General urged), while liberal justices warned overruling the 1935 precedent could upend independent agencies; a decision, with implications for multiple recent agency removals and a related Federal Reserve case, is expected by the end of June.
📌 Key Facts
- Trump v. Slaughter centers on President Trump’s March removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter (originally appointed 2018, reappointed to a term through 2029) via an email saying her “continued service … is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.”
- A federal judge ordered Slaughter reinstated in July, the D.C. Circuit issued temporary orders, and the Supreme Court in September stayed the reinstatement in a 6–3 emergency order while granting review; oral arguments are set for a Monday at 10 a.m. ET with live audio access.
- The Court framed two questions for argument: whether the FTC’s statutory for‑cause removal protections violate separation of powers and whether the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled; and whether courts may grant equitable or legal relief to prevent a person’s removal.
- Several conservative justices signaled openness to expanding presidential removal power — Chief Justice Roberts observed the FTC wields far more power today than in 1935, Justice Kavanaugh warned that once removal power is taken from the president it is hard to reclaim, and Justice Barrett rejected the view that commissioner protections trace to the Founding — while liberal justices (Kagan, Sotomayor) warned overturning Humphrey’s would destabilize government institutions.
- U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued for overruling Humphrey’s Executor, saying for‑cause protections unconstitutionally limit presidential authority and disparaging some agencies as “headless” or “junior varsity legislatures;” Amit Agarwal will argue on behalf of former commissioner Slaughter.
- The dispute sits against a broader pattern this year of the administration removing Democratic members from multiple independent agencies (including the FTC, NLRB, MSPB, CPSC, EEOC), and the White House also removed FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, leaving the commission with three Republican commissioners.
- A small number of officials have so far resisted removal efforts (notably Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook and Library of Congress copyright official Shira Perlmutter); the Court is also slated to hear a related challenge involving the attempted removal of Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
- If the Court overturns Humphrey’s Executor, presidents could gain authority to fire independent agency commissioners at will — a change that would reshape century‑old bipartisan, independent agency structures and could have sweeping real‑world consequences; a decision is expected by the end of June.
📊 Analysis & Commentary (1)
The Trump show hits the stage
"A Playbook commentary that juxtaposes Trump’s showman-like Kennedy Center outing with the high-stakes Supreme Court hearing in Slaughter v. Trump, warning that the Court could enshrine a sweeping expansion of presidential removal power and thereby weaken independent agencies."
📰 Sources (9)
Supreme Court seems ready to let Trump fire independent commissioners
New information:
- Conservative justices signaled reluctance to deny presidents removal power over agency commissioners; Justice Kavanaugh warned once power is taken from the president it is hard to reclaim.
- Chief Justice Roberts noted the FTC wields far more power today than in 1935, weakening Humphrey’s Executor’s force.
- Justice Barrett did not accept that commissioner protections trace to the Founding.
- Liberal justices Sotomayor and Kagan warned that overturning the precedent could upend government structure and have sweeping real-world consequences.
- U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued Humphrey’s Executor unconstitutionally limits presidential authority and described some agencies as 'headless' and 'junior varsity legislatures.'
- Decision expected by end of June; the Court will also hear a related dispute involving Trump’s attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Who are the lawyers arguing the F.T.C. case?
New information:
- D. John Sauer, the U.S. Solicitor General, will argue first on behalf of the Trump administration.
- Amit Agarwal, special counsel with Protect Democracy, will argue on behalf of former FTC commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
- Background details on Sauer’s prior clerkship with Justice Scalia and his role in Trump-related Supreme Court litigation are noted.
The Supreme Court case that could hand Trump unchecked power to fire agency heads
New information:
- Axios reports an email to FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya stating his 'continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's policies.'
- Rebecca Slaughter is quoted warning that overturning Humphrey’s Executor 'would profoundly destabilize institutions' central to governance.
- Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent is quoted criticizing the Court’s emergency docket use to permit actions barred by precedent and to shift authority from Congress to the president.
- Axios emphasizes that the conservative majority used the emergency docket to allow Trump to fire Slaughter while the Court considers the broader authority question.
SCOTUS takes up Trump’s bid to fire FTC commissioner at will — a showdown that could topple 90-year precedent
New information:
- Supreme Court specified two questions for argument: whether FTC removal protections violate separation of powers and whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled; and whether courts may prevent a person’s removal via equitable or legal relief.
- The cert grant reportedly split along ideological lines, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting.
- Procedural history detail: a federal judge ordered Slaughter reinstated in July; the Supreme Court stayed that order in September pending review.
- Slaughter’s statutory argument under the FTC Act is highlighted, while Solicitor General D. John Sauer urges overruling Humphrey’s in filings.
Supreme Court to hear case that could vastly expand presidential powers
New information:
- Supreme Court’s September emergency order allowing Slaughter’s removal to stand pending the merits was a 6–3 ideological split.
- Slaughter’s term details: originally appointed in 2018, reappointed by President Biden to a term running through 2029; she was removed in March via an email from the White House Presidential Personnel Office.
- Quoted rationale from the removal notice: her 'continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration’s priorities.'
- Article enumerates additional agencies where Democratic members were removed this year, including the EEOC, MSPB, and CPSC.
- Reiterates statutory 'for-cause' removal limits for FTC commissioners and details Congress’s bipartisan, independent design for the FTC since 1914.
LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court hears Trump v. Slaughter in another test of presidential power
New information:
- Oral arguments are set for Monday at 10 a.m. EST with live audio access.
- The case explicitly invites the Court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the 1935 precedent limiting presidential removal of independent agency heads.
- AP recap notes the scope of recent removals (FTC, NLRB, MSPB, CPSC) and that only a few officials (Fed Governor Lisa Cook, copyright official Shira Perlmutter) have resisted removal efforts, underscoring the case’s stakes.
Supreme Court to hear major test of presidential power in case over FTC firing
New information:
- Identifies the case as Trump v. Slaughter and centers it on FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter’s removal.
- Details procedural history: district court ruled the firing unlawful and ordered reinstatement; the D.C. Circuit issued temporary orders; Chief Justice Roberts allowed removal to proceed; SCOTUS granted review and kept Slaughter out pending a decision.
- Notes Trump also removed Democratic Commissioner Alvaro M. Bedoya, leaving the FTC with three Republican commissioners.
- Quotes Trump’s email to Slaughter that her 'continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's priorities.'
- Reiterates the FTC’s for-cause removal standard enacted by Congress in 1914 as the legal backdrop for the dispute.
The Supreme Court weighs another step in favor of broad presidential power sought by Trump
New information:
- AP reports the only officials who have so far survived removal efforts are Fed Governor Lisa Cook and Library of Congress copyright official Shira Perlmutter.
- The Court has allowed Trump to remove officials at multiple independent agencies (including NLRB, MSPB, CPSC) despite Humphrey’s Executor still standing.
- Trump has said he wants Lisa Cook out over alleged mortgage-fraud claims; Cook denies wrongdoing, and the Court has signaled it may view the Federal Reserve differently from other agencies.
- Contextual quotes: Roberts’ 2020 opinion stating removal power is the rule, not the exception; his 2024 immunity decision describing removal as a 'conclusive and preclusive' presidential power; Justice Kagan’s September remark that conservatives seem 'raring' to take this action.