Supreme Court Reviews Presidential Authority in FTC Commissioner Dismissal
Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.
The Supreme Court is evaluating the constitutionality of President Trump's removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause, potentially redefining presidential control over independent agencies.
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on the case of Trump v. Slaughter, which challenges President Donald Trump's dismissal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause. This case could significantly impact the president's authority over independent federal agencies.
In March 2025, President Trump removed Slaughter from her position, citing policy disagreements. This action contradicts the FTC Act of 1914, which stipulates that commissioners can only be dismissed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The Supreme Court upheld these protections in the 1935 case Humphrey's Executor v. United States, affirming that such removal restrictions are constitutional.
The Trump administration argues that the FTC has evolved to exercise significant executive powers, making its commissioners subject to at-will removal by the president. Solicitor General D. John Sauer stated that removal protections for members of independent agencies leave the president "saddled with subordinate officers" who prevent him from ensuring that the laws are faithfully executed.
Conversely, Slaughter's legal team contends that overturning the 1935 precedent would destabilize institutions integral to U.S. governance. They argue that multimember independent agencies are deeply ingrained in the nation's history and tradition, confirming their compatibility with the Constitution's text and structure.
The Supreme Court's decision in this case could redefine the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, potentially allowing future presidents to exert greater control over such entities.
