In a significant move, the high court will allow President Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while it considers the broader constitutional questions about presidential removal powers.
According to CBS News, the justices will hear arguments in December on whether the president can fire FTC commissioners without cause, potentially overturning a 90-year-old precedent that has insulated independent agencies from political pressure. The court's conservative majority granted the Trump administration's request to let the president fire Slaughter immediately, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
The case represents the latest chapter in Trump's ongoing efforts to assert greater control over independent regulatory agencies. It directly challenges a 1914 law that limits grounds for removing FTC commissioners to "inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office."
The Supreme Court will consider whether removal protections for FTC members violate separation of powers principles and if its landmark 1935 Humphrey's Executor decision should be overturned. That ruling allowed Congress to shield certain officials from presidential removal without cause, establishing the foundation for independent agency structures that have existed for nearly a century.
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the court's decision as a "significant" victory that protects presidential executive authority. "This helps affirm our argument that the President, not a lower court judge, has hiring and firing power over executive officials," Bondi wrote on social media.
The dispute arose after Trump moved to oust Slaughter, whom he originally appointed to the FTC in 2018 and who was later reappointed by President Biden to a term expiring in 2029. Lower courts had ruled in Slaughter's favor, ordering her reinstatement after finding the president's removal attempt violated federal law.
This case continues a string of emergency appeals to the Supreme Court stemming from Trump's efforts to fire Democratic appointees from independent agencies. The conservative justices have consistently endorsed the president's removal authority in recent months, allowing him to fire members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission despite statutory protections.
These decisions have increasingly called into question the future of the Humphrey's Executor precedent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh previously warned that "the downsides of delay in definitively resolving the status of the precedent sometimes tend to outweigh the benefits of further lower-court consideration."
The Trump administration argues that today's FTC exercises "vast executive authority" unlike the 1935-era commission. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that district courts cannot compel reinstatement of agency heads when the president has determined they should be removed.
In her dissent, Justice Kagan warned that the court has "handed full control" of certain independent agencies to the president despite Congress's intent to shield them from political pressure. "He may now remove — so says the majority, though Congress said differently — any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all," she wrote.
Slaughter's legal team argued that for 90 years, every president, including Trump during his first term, respected the Supreme Court's finding that the for-cause removal requirement for the FTC is constitutionally valid. They warned that allowing her to be fired without cause would leave the FTC "severely wounded and radically transformed."
The case represents the latest effort by the court to reexamine presidential removal powers. In recent years, the justices found unconstitutional the leadership structures of both the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Agency, which were led by single directors removable only for cause.
The Supreme Court's decision could have far-reaching consequences for the structure of the federal government. A ruling overturning Humphrey's Executor would potentially subject numerous independent agencies to greater presidential control.
Both sides agreed the constitutional question was ripe for the Supreme Court's consideration. The Trump administration urged swift evaluation of the removal restrictions' constitutionality, while Slaughter's team acknowledged the importance of resolving the issue definitively.
The court will hear arguments in its December session, with the stay allowing Slaughter's removal remaining in place until a final decision is issued. The case represents a critical test of presidential power that could fundamentally alter the relationship between the White House and independent regulatory agencies for generations to come.