The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority appears to side with the Trump administration in a landmark case that could reshape the independence of federal agencies long protected from presidential interference.
The case, Trump v. Slaughter, arises from President Donald Trump’s March firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter and another Democratic-appointed commissioner. The court heard over two hours of arguments regarding whether Trump could remove Slaughter, despite federal law stipulating that commissioners may only be fired for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Alina Habba Resigns After Court Disqualifies Her From Serving as New Jersey’s Top Prosecutor↗
Background of the Case
Slaughter, appointed by Trump in 2018 to a Democratic seat and later reappointed by President Biden, sued Trump after her removal, citing her firing as politically motivated and inconsistent with statutory protections. The FTC, established in 1914 to regulate deceptive business practices and ensure fair competition, is designed to operate independently with a five-member commission limited to no more than three members from the same political party.
Similar protections exist for other independent federal agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board.
Historical Precedent: Humphrey’s Executor
The legal challenge echoes a 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey’s Executor (1935), in which the Supreme Court upheld that presidents could not remove commissioners of independent agencies for political reasons. The ruling distinguished these agencies as “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.”
During Monday’s oral arguments, however, the four conservative justices indicated skepticism toward this longstanding precedent.
- Solicitor General John Sauer described Humphrey’s Executor as an “indefensible outlier” and a “decaying husk” of a decision.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch said broad delegations to independent agencies pose “enormous constitutional and real-world problems for individual liberty.”
Liberal Justices Push Back
The three liberal justices questioned overturning the 90-year-old ruling.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that it would undermine the structure of government and Congress’s ability to protect independent agencies.
- Justice Elena Kagan raised concerns about far-reaching consequences, asking, “Where does this lead?” and noting that civil service laws have provided protections for over a century.
Amit Agarwal, representing Slaughter, emphasized that independent multi-member commissions with removal protections have been integral to U.S. governance since 1790, arguing that overturning the precedent would upend longstanding constitutional practices.
Lower Court Rulings and Current Status
A lower court previously ruled that Slaughter had been illegally removed, prompting the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court. In September, the Court issued a 6-3 emergency order allowing her firing to stand pending full review, signaling a potential leaning in favor of the administration.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling is expected in the coming months and could have broad implications for the independence of federal agencies and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.