The Supreme Court of the United States has once again agreed with former President Donald Trump in a case concerning the dismissal of a Democratic FTC commissioner. Trump was granted permission by the court on Monday to fire Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, at least temporarily, until the larger constitutional questions were debated in December.
This disagreement highlights a long-running discussion about the degree of independence Congress can give regulatory agencies from the president. It also draws attention to Trump’s larger plan to exercise more authority over independent organisations while in office.
Background of the Dispute
Trump attempted to fire two Democrats from the FTC in March, including Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner renowned for her efforts on consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. The debate around her departure began right once, with antitrust advocates and congressional Democrats accusing Trump of attempting to silence critical voices within the agency.
The president cannot fire FTC commissioners for simply disagreeing with the agency’s policies, according to federal law. Instead, dismissal is only permitted for certain reasons, such misconduct, inefficiency, or duty neglect. Trump clearly questioned this protection when he fired Slaughter.
The Lower Court Rulings
U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan blocked Trump’s action in July after Slaughter filed a legal challenge to her termination. The administration claimed that removal safeguards illegally encroached on presidential authority, but the judge dismissed this claim.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the verdict in a 2-1 ruling after an appeal. The appeal judges used a 1935 Supreme Court case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, to support their argument that protections for FTC commissioners were consistent with constitutional tradition.
By limiting President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s power to dismiss an FTC commissioner for policy disagreements, the decision established the idea that Congress may give some agencies autonomy.
America’s Healthcare System Faces a Breaking Point: Workforce Exodus and Urgent Solutions
Supreme Court Steps In
The Trump administration quickly filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts stopped Judge Ali Khan’s decision on September 8 with an emergency order, preventing Slaughter from taking back her seat while the court deliberated the case.
The full court said Monday that it would hear oral arguments in December. Trump is still able to fire Slaughter and prevent her from taking her position again in the interim.
This interim decision is the latest in a string of Supreme Court rulings that give Trump extensive authority to fire employees of independent agencies.
Meta Platforms Moves Into Wholesale Power Trading to Fuel AI Growth
A Question of Presidential Power
Whether the president should have unrestricted authority to fire individuals who exercise executive power is at the heart of the dispute. Trump’s attorneys contend that the FTC has much more authority now than it did in 1935, when the Humphrey’s Executor case was decided. They argue that FTC commissioners should not have legislative safeguards against removal due to this extension of jurisdiction.
However, Slaughter’s attorneys deny this claim. They contend that since the 1930s, the FTC’s function has altered, but not much. According to them, the agency independence principle outlined in Humphrey’s Executor is still important and required to maintain impartial oversight.
Trump Floats National Emergency for Washington as Tensions With City Leaders Escalate
Similar Cases at Other Agencies
The FTC dispute is not an isolated case. Trump has been pursuing the termination of several agencies that are often regarded as autonomous in recent months.
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB): The Supreme Court permitted Trump to fire officials in May in disregard of statutory job safeguards.
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): The court emphasised that both agencies have “considerable executive power” in its ruling, which also applied to this body.
- Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): The court once more backed Trump in July, allowing him to dismiss three Democratic members while the case was still pending.
The conservative majority on the court has regularly favoured expanded presidential authority over independent institutions, which is a pattern established by these decisions.
Sam Altman’s Predictions on AI and Jobs: What the Future of Work Could Look Like
The Liberal Justices’ Objections
Not every justice supports this trend. In these cases, the three liberal members of the court—Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—have dissented.
The majority is essentially overturning Humphrey’s Executor without formally doing so, according to Justice Kagan, who wrote on behalf of the group. She cautioned that depriving agencies of their independence might politicise them and make it more difficult for them to function as unbiased regulators.
These decisions, according to the dissenters, are a part of a larger breakdown of the congressional constraints on executive power.
Meta Prepares to Launch Celeste Smart Glasses: A Glimpse Into the Future of AR and AI
Political and Policy Fallout
The FTC has had three Republican members and no Democratic representation since Slaughter and her partner Democratic commissioner were removed. This change has had a discernible impact on the agency’s agenda.
The FTC, led by Republicans, has:
- Organised a workshop outlining the dangers of gender-affirming medical treatment for young transgender people.
- Google may be breaking the law if it filters Republican fundraising emails as spam.
- Launched enquiries against watchdog organisations that Elon Musk claims are responsible for organising boycotts by advertisers from his social media network, X.
These actions show a more partisan slant, as some contend that political interests have trumped the agency’s longstanding consumer protection mission.
Tesla’s $1 Trillion Bet on Elon Musk: Why the Board Says It’s Worth It
Trump’s Broader Campaign
Trump has attempted to fire other Democratic officials, such as Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, in addition to the FTC. The idea that autonomous agencies should serve as direct extensions of executive power rather than as balances on presidential policy is reflected in these initiatives.
This viewpoint’s proponents contend that it brings accountability back to the political process and guarantees that agencies support the goals of the elected president. Critics argue that it undermines the independence Congress sought, making regulatory agencies susceptible to political meddling.
Ivy League Dreams: Why These Eight U.S. Universities Define Academic Prestige
The Upcoming December Hearing
The Supreme Court’s agreement to consider the issue in December guarantees that this conflict will go beyond short-term decisions. The future of independent agencies’ operations within the American governmental system is at risk, not only Rebecca Slaughter’s seat.
The court could essentially reverse Humphrey’s Executor if it rules in favour of Trump, granting presidents broad power to dismiss commissioners from a variety of independent organisations, such as the Federal Reserve, the FTC, and the NLRB.
Congress will be able to keep some agency officials from being fired if the court maintains the precedent, maintaining some degree of autonomy in regulatory supervision.
Microsoft and OpenAI Reshape Their Partnership: Toward a For-Profit Future and Global AI Expansion
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling permitting Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter underscores an increasingly escalating constitutional conflict between the executive branch and legislative protections. Even though the decision is just temporary, it shows that the court is prepared to give the president more control over independent agencies.
The conclusion could reshape Washington’s power structure as the justices get ready for a full hearing in December. Regardless of whether the court upholds or undermines long-standing safeguards for agency independence, the decision will have a significant impact on American governance, consumer protection, and the separation of powers.