The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter could lead to significant changes in the dynamics of federal power. This case, set for oral arguments on Monday, challenges longstanding principles governing presidential authority over independent agencies.
Slaughter, a Democrat, asserts that her removal without cause violates protections established by the Supreme Court in a 1935 case, Humphrey’s Executor. This precedent restricts a president’s ability to dismiss heads of independent regulatory bodies without just cause. Slaughter argues that her firing breaches the Federal Trade Commission Act, which stipulates that members can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
A federal judge initially supported Slaughter, ruling in July that Trump exceeded his authority with her removal and ordered her reinstatement. However, the Supreme Court intervened in September, pausing the lower court’s decision while it reviews the case, allowing Trump’s action to remain in effect for now.
As the justices prepare to hear arguments, they will tackle critical questions about whether the protections for FTC members disrupt the separation of powers and if Humphrey’s Executor should be discarded altogether. Solicitor General D. John Sauer represents the administration’s stance, arguing that today’s FTC has powers far beyond what was envisioned in 1935. He claims that allowing certain agencies to operate free from presidential oversight undermines the Constitution’s balance of power.
This review reflects a broader trend, as the Supreme Court increasingly examines the contours of presidential authority. The conservative majority’s interest in this case suggests a potential shift away from the established limits on presidential power over regulatory agencies. If the Court decides to weaken or eliminate Humphrey’s protections, it could lead to significant changes, allowing future presidents to fire agency heads at will, reshaping how independent regulatory bodies operate.
This case is not occurring in a vacuum. It is one of several others this term that will address separation of powers issues tied to the so-called unitary executive theory. Critics warn that the Court’s willingness to entertain these cases risks dismantling critical safeguards against unilateral presidential actions, thereby setting dangerous precedents that transcend party lines.
As for the future, the Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected to lay the groundwork for similar cases, including one concerning Trump’s attempts to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The implications of these decisions will resonate far beyond regulatory frameworks; they will call into question the very checks on executive power central to the nation’s governance.
With a ruling expected soon, all eyes will be on the justices. Their stance on this case may not only redefine the balance of power within the federal government but could also impact how presidential power is wielded in practical terms going forward.
"*" indicates required fields
