In a move signaling a potential shift in executive power, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary order on Monday, September 8, 2025, allowing President Donald Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. This stay halts lower court decisions that had reinstated Slaughter, pending a full Supreme Court review, raising questions about the independence of federal agencies.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy began when President Trump, seeking greater control over regulatory bodies, fired Commissioner Slaughter in March. Slaughter, initially appointed by Trump in 2018 and later reappointed by former President Joe Biden, had a term set to expire in 2029. Her removal, along with that of another Democratic FTC Commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya (who has since resigned), sparked legal challenges centered on presidential removal powers.
Clash Over Presidential Removal Powers
At the heart of the legal battle is the interpretation of the president’s authority to remove officials from independent agencies like the FTC. The traditional understanding, rooted in the 1935 Supreme Court case *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States*, has been that commissioners of such agencies are protected from at-will removal and can only be dismissed “for-cause” reasons such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.
However, the Trump administration, represented by U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, argues that Article II of the Constitution grants the president “unrestricted” power to fire federal officers. The administration further contends that the modern FTC wields significantly more power than its 1935 counterpart, justifying broader presidential authority in overseeing the agency.
Lower Court Rulings and the Supreme Court’s Intervention
Slaughter initially prevailed in lower courts. In July, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., ruled that her removal was “unlawful” and “without legal effect.” This decision was subsequently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit the week before Chief Justice Roberts’ stay. These courts emphasized the importance of insulating independent regulatory commissions from political interference, citing the *Humphrey’s Executor* precedent.
The Trump administration swiftly appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to Chief Justice Roberts’ temporary order. This order effectively removes Slaughter from her FTC post while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s emergency appeal. Slaughter has been directed to respond to the appeal by September 15, 2025.
Implications for Regulatory Independence
This legal battle has far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Trump administration could fundamentally reshape regulatory enforcement across various sectors.
Potential Impacts Across Sectors
The ability for presidents to more easily reshape agencies could impact a wide range of areas. Sectors potentially affected include:
- Antitrust enforcement
- Consumer protection
- Banking regulations
- Labor laws
Such a ruling would represent a significant departure from nearly a century of precedent designed to ensure the non-partisan functioning of crucial government bodies. This challenge to established norms raises concerns about the future of regulatory independence and the potential for increased political influence over agencies designed to protect the public interest.
Expert Opinions and Potential Outcomes
Legal scholars are divided on the potential outcome of the Supreme Court case. Some argue that the *Humphrey’s Executor* precedent remains strong and that the Court is unlikely to overturn decades of established law. Others believe that the Court’s current composition, with a conservative majority, may be more receptive to the Trump administration’s arguments about executive power.
The decision ultimately rests on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article II of the Constitution and its assessment of the FTC’s modern role. If the Court sides with the Trump administration, it could embolden future presidents to exert greater control over independent agencies, potentially leading to a more politicized regulatory landscape. Conversely, a ruling in favor of Slaughter would reaffirm the importance of agency independence and limit presidential removal powers.
The Broader Context of Executive Authority
This case is not isolated; it is part of a broader trend of increasing executive power in recent decades. Presidents from both parties have sought to expand their authority over various aspects of government, often clashing with Congress and the judiciary. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have a significant impact on the ongoing debate about the limits of presidential power and the role of independent agencies in a democratic society.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on President Trump’s ability to fire an FTC commissioner will have far-reaching consequences. It will not only determine the fate of Rebecca Slaughter’s position but also set a precedent for the relationship between the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies for years to come, potentially reshaping the American regulatory landscape.
