Supreme Court to Decide If President Can Remove FTC Commissioner in High-Stakes Separation-of-Powers Case

Washington — The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that tests how far a president may go in removing officials who lead independent federal agencies. At issue is whether statutory "for-cause" protections for Federal Trade Commission commissioners — limits that allow removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" — are compatible with the Constitution's allocation of executive power.

Background

The dispute centers on the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States, in which the Court held that Congress may protect members of certain multi-member agencies from at-will removal when those agencies exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. In recent years, conservative justices have narrowed that precedent: the Court found the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director's for-cause protection unconstitutional in Seila Law (2020) and curtailed similar protections for the Federal Housing Finance Agency in Collins (2021).

The Firing at the Center of the Case

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, an FTC commissioner first appointed during the previous administration and reappointed under President Biden, was removed by President Trump after receiving an email saying her "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's priorities." Slaughter and another Democratic commissioner were dismissed, leaving the FTC with three Republican commissioners.

Slaughter sued, arguing the removal violated the statute Congress adopted when it created the FTC in 1914. A federal district court agreed and ordered her reinstated. That decision prompted a series of appeals and temporary stays; Chief Justice John Roberts allowed the administration to keep Slaughter out of her post while the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Legal Arguments

The administration contends the Constitution vests executive power in the president, and for-cause removal protections hamper the president's ability to "take care that the laws are faithfully executed." Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued removal limits leave the president "saddled with subordinate officers" who can obstruct execution of the laws and that Congress may not create a de facto "Fourth Branch" insulated from presidential control.

Slaughter's lawyers and supporting amici counter that multimember independent agencies are longstanding congressional creations compatible with constitutional structure. They argue for-cause protections preserve bipartisan representation, prevent abrupt politicization, protect institutional stability, and restrain unilateral presidential interference with regulatory decision-making.

What's At Stake

If the Court invalidates for-cause removal protections for FTC commissioners, the reasoning could sweep across many statutes that use similar language, affecting more than two dozen independent agencies that regulate areas from consumer protection to telecommunications, energy and workplace rules.

Supporters of tenure protections warn that allowing at-will removals could enable presidents to reshape agencies quickly, strip minority representation, undermine quorums and alter public confidence in regulators. Proponents of broader removal authority say presidential control is necessary to ensure accountability and coherent execution of the law.

Potential Ripple Effects and Timeline

The decision could prompt litigation over other independent bodies — the Court has already signaled skepticism about protections at agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The outcome may also influence pending disputes involving the Federal Reserve and other independent entities.

Key near-term development: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments and issue a decision that may reconfigure the balance of power between the presidency and Congress and reshape how many federal agencies operate.

"The question is whether statutory limits on removal unjustifiably infringe the president's constitutional duty to ensure laws are faithfully executed," said one constitutional scholar — encapsulating the core tension before the justices.

The Court's ruling is likely to have long-lasting consequences for administrative governance, separation-of-powers doctrine, and the scope of presidential authority.