President Donald Trump fired Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in March. She sued to get her job back. The case now before the Supreme Court will decide whether a 1935 precedent protecting independent agency commissioners from presidential removal was wrongly decided—and whether the Constitution grants the President authority to fire such officials at will.
The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 established the FTC as a five-member commission to prevent unfair business practices and anticompetitive behavior. Commissioners serve seven-year terms. The statute says commissioners can be removed by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” No more than three commissioners can be from the same political party.
Trump fired Slaughter—a Democrat he had originally appointed in his first term—with an email stating her “continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.” He cited no inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance.
Slaughter sued. A federal district court ordered her reinstated, citing Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In that 1935 case, President Franklin Roosevelt fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey over policy disagreements without citing statutory cause. Humphrey’s estate sued for back pay. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the FTC Act’s removal restrictions were constitutional. The Court held that because the FTC performs “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions—not purely executive functions—Congress could restrict the President’s removal power.
The Trump administration argues Humphrey’s Executor was wrong. Article II of the Constitution states “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States” and requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Trump’s position is straightforward: Executive power belongs to the President. Enforcing federal law against anticompetitive practices is an executive function. Therefore the President must be able to remove officials who exercise that power.
The Supreme Court stayed the district court’s reinstatement order in September and scheduled arguments for December. During Monday’s oral arguments, the conservative majority signaled it agrees with Trump’s position.
Chief Justice John Roberts said Humphrey’s Executor “was addressing an agency that had very little, if any, executive power” in 1935, suggesting the FTC’s role has since expanded beyond what the 1935 Court considered. Justice Neil Gorsuch called the decision “poorly reasoned from the start.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted the Court has been “eroding” Humphrey’s Executor for years through subsequent decisions limiting independent agencies.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that agencies exercising executive power “have no boss” under the current system, and that “the one who has the power to remove is the person that they have to fear and obey.” Without removal authority, Sauer argued, the President cannot ensure laws are faithfully executed.
Slaughter’s attorneys counter that the Constitution says nothing explicit about removal. It requires Senate consent for appointments but is silent on firing. Congress, they argue, has authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure agencies as it determines best serves the public interest—including imposing removal restrictions to insulate technical judgments from political pressure.
The three liberal justices raised concerns about upending 90 years of reliance on Humphrey’s Executor. Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Sauer the administration was asking the Court to “destroy the structure of government and to take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.”
An amicus brief from 250 members of Congress argued that Congress and presidents have structured dozens of agencies based on Humphrey’s Executor—including the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and National Labor Relations Board. Overturning the precedent would require restructuring the entire administrative state.
Trump has already fired commissioners from the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission using the same constitutional theory. In January the Court will hear arguments about Trump’s removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
The Court’s decision, expected by summer 2026, will resolve whether Article II’s grant of executive power to the President includes inherent authority to remove any official exercising executive functions—or whether Congress can restrict that power for multi-member agencies performing regulatory and adjudicative functions Congress considers quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial.
If the Court rules for Trump, Congress cannot override that decision through legislation. A constitutional ruling that removal restrictions violate Article II would require a constitutional amendment to change—a process requiring two-thirds of both houses and ratification by three-fourths of states.
The case presents competing visions of separation of powers. Trump’s position holds that executive power belongs exclusively to the President, and Congress cannot create executive positions insulated from presidential control. Slaughter’s position holds that Congress has constitutional authority to structure agencies with independence from short-term political pressures, particularly when those agencies perform functions beyond pure law enforcement.
Based on Monday’s oral arguments, the conservative majority appears ready to hold that the 1935 Court erred in allowing Congress to restrict presidential removal of FTC commissioners. Whether the opinion explicitly overrules Humphrey’s Executor or narrowly distinguishes it based on the FTC’s expanded modern role, the practical effect will grant presidents authority to fire independent agency commissioners at will.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 