The U.S. Supreme Court is diving into a constitutional showdown over former President Donald Trump’s bold move to oust a Federal Trade Commission member.
This case, set for arguments on Monday, centers on Trump’s dismissal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, before her term was due to end in 2029, challenging decades of precedent on presidential power over independent agencies.
Let’s rewind to March, when Trump decided to give Slaughter the boot, along with another Democrat on the FTC, citing policy differences rather than the legally required “cause” like inefficiency or malfeasance.
A 1914 law clearly states that FTC commissioners can only be removed for specific reasons, not just because a president dislikes their stance on Big Tech or corporate mergers.
Independent agencies like the FTC, National Labor Relations Board, and others have long enjoyed tenure protections, shielding their heads from political whims— a principle upheld since the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ruling.
That precedent declared the FTC’s role more legislative and judicial than purely executive, justifying restrictions on presidential removal power, but Trump’s team argues it’s time to rethink that outdated carve-out.
The Justice Department, defending Trump’s action, leans on the “unitary executive” theory, claiming the president should have unchecked authority over the executive branch, including firing agency heads at will.
They argue the modern FTC wields massive executive power, far beyond what was envisioned in 1935, making tenure protections an unconstitutional handcuff on presidential control.
Slaughter’s legal team counters that the constitutionality of removal limits doesn’t hinge on the scope of an agency’s authority— a point worth chewing on before tossing out nearly 90 years of settled law.
Washington-based U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan blocked the dismissal in July, rejecting Trump’s claim that tenure protections infringe on his power, a decision later upheld 2-1 by the D.C. Circuit in September.
Yet, the Supreme Court, in a split decision with its liberal justices dissenting, allowed Slaughter’s removal to stand temporarily while agreeing to hear the case— a move that hints at where the 6-3 conservative majority might lean.
Critics, including Democratic senators and antimonopoly advocates, have cried foul, suggesting Trump’s firings aimed to silence dissent within the FTC against corporate giants— a charge that raises eyebrows about executive overreach.
This isn’t just about one commissioner; it’s a test of whether the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, already narrowed in recent decades, will survive or crumble under a court skeptical of bureaucratic insulation.
A related case on Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, set for arguments on January 21, shows this battle over presidential power isn’t a one-off— it’s a pattern.
With a ruling expected by June, the nation watches as the Supreme Court weighs whether to uphold congressional safeguards or hand presidents a sharper tool to shape agencies, for better or worse. Let’s hope the balance of power doesn’t tip too far from the Constitution’s intent.
