Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Fire FTC Commissioner, Challenging Nearly a Century of Precedent

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Let Him Fire FTC Commissioner, Challenging Nearly a Century of Precedent image

Image courtesy of Shuran Huang for The Washington Post via Getty Images

President Donald Trump has asked the United States Supreme Court to authorize him to fire the sole remaining Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), setting the stage for a legal battle that could upend a nearly 90-year-old precedent and potentially give the White House broader authority over federal regulators.

The appeal challenges the landmark 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor, which established that Congress could protect certain high-ranking officials from removal except for cause, such as inefficiency or neglect of duty. While the Court’s current conservative majority has gradually eroded aspects of that ruling, it has stopped short of directly overturning it—until now.

The filing comes in the wake of a federal appeals court decision last Tuesday that reinstated FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who is actively contesting Trump’s attempt to remove her from office. In its petition, the administration asked the Supreme Court to allow Slaughter’s immediate removal and to take the case for full review, seeking a definitive ruling on the president’s authority.

The legal clash arrives amid Trump’s simultaneous efforts to oust Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud, a separate dispute raising distinct constitutional questions. In the FTC case, Trump argues he has the inherent constitutional authority to remove Slaughter for any reason. The president initially sought to fire her in March, prompting Slaughter to sue on the grounds that the removal violated the FTC Act. That law stipulates that commissioners may only be removed for cause, such as inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. A federal judge in Washington sided with Slaughter in July, leaving her status in regulatory limbo ever since.

This dispute represents the most direct challenge to Humphrey’s Executor in decades. The original 1935 decision arose when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt attempted to dismiss a Republican FTC commissioner. The Court’s ruling against Roosevelt paved the way for the modern system of independent agencies, which has expanded to include entities across the federal government designed to function with a degree of independence from presidential control. Conservatives have long criticized Humphrey’s Executor, arguing that it infringes on the Constitution’s separation of powers, and in recent years, they have gained legal traction in limiting its reach.

For example, in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could remove the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, emphasizing that a powerful executive branch official must remain accountable to the president. More recently, the Court allowed Trump to remove members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. At the same time, the Court has indicated that certain positions, like Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, may remain insulated from at-will removal absent clear misconduct.

In its Supreme Court filing on Thursday, the Trump administration criticized the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, accusing it of defying the high court’s prior rulings. “Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” the petition stated, quoting a recent opinion by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch in a case concerning federal medical research grants.

Supporters of Humphrey’s Executor contend that the Constitution grants Congress the discretion to establish agencies that rely on independent, expert leadership and function free from direct presidential control, ensuring regulatory stability and expertise. Critics counter that unchecked independence undermines democratic accountability and the president’s ability to enforce the law.

The Supreme Court now faces a pivotal decision in Trump v. Slaughter, 25A264, which could redefine the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, with implications reaching far beyond the FTC itself.

Related Posts