The Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to fire numerous Democrat-appointed members of independent regulatory agencies, including two Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners, raising significant questions about the scope of executive power. The case involving former FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who alleges her firing was unconstitutional, is now set to potentially reach the Supreme Court, testing the limits of presidential authority over agencies. Legal experts, including constitutional law professor John Shu, suggest the court may side with Trump, which could mark a significant shift in the interpretation of long-standing precedents like the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision.
The case, Slaughter v. Trump, centers on the legality of Trump’s removal of Slaughter and fellow FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, who were appointed by President Barack Obama. Slaughter’s legal team argues that Trump violated Humphrey’s Executor, a landmark 1935 ruling that curtailed presidential power to remove agency heads without cause. However, Trump’s legal team, supported by conservative judges, contends that the ruling was not a binding precedent, and the recent Supreme Court decisions have signaled a willingness to re-examine it.
The implications of this case extend beyond the FTC. If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, it could embolden future presidents to unilaterally remove executive officers, reducing the independence of federal agencies and increasing their responsiveness to executive control. This development has sparked debates over the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory bodies, with critics warning that it could undermine checks and balances and threaten the autonomy of key agencies.