Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court Ruling to Allow Removal of FTC Commissioner
On Thursday, the Trump administration filed a request with the Supreme Court to allow the president to remove the last remaining Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Rebecca Slaughter. The move comes after lower courts ruled that the president does not have the legal authority to unilaterally remove members of independent agencies without cause. This case is testing the boundaries of the president’s removal powers and could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal regulatory agencies.
The administration is arguing that the FTC and other regulatory bodies, such as the Federal Reserve, are under the control of the executive branch and that the president should retain the ability to remove commissioners without cause. This legal stance directly challenges the long-standing precedent established in the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, a cornerstone of American administrative law. That ruling, which was issued by the Supreme Court, held that presidents cannot fire members of independent agencies unless there is a valid justification such as misconduct or negligence.
The case has attracted significant legal and political attention, as the outcome could redefine the scope of presidential authority over federal agencies. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the administration, it could signal a shift in the balance of power, undermining the independence of key regulatory bodies that oversee consumer protection, antitrust enforcement, and other critical areas of public interest.
Slaughter, who served as an FTC commissioner since 2018, was initially appointed by Trump and reappointed by former President Joe Biden in 2021. The FTC, an independent agency created by Congress, is responsible for enforcing antitrust laws and consumer protection regulations. Its composition includes three members appointed by the president and two appointed by the Senate, ensuring a bipartisan approach to regulation. However, under Trump’s leadership, the agency has seen a shift in its majority, with all but one member being Trump appointees. Slaughter, as the only remaining Democrat on the commission, has become a focal point of the ongoing dispute.
The legal battle over Slaughter’s removal has led to a series of lower court rulings that have consistently sided with the FTC and its members. In an appeals court decision earlier this week, the judge ruled that Trump’s attempt to fire Slaughter was unlawful, reinforcing the legal argument that the president cannot unilaterally remove members of independent agencies without cause. This ruling further undermines the administration’s case and adds to the growing body of legal precedents that restrict presidential removal powers.
As the case moves forward, the Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on the validity of the administration’s request to overturn or reinterpret the Humphrey’s Executor decision. This ruling could set a precedent for similar cases involving the Federal Reserve, where Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a Republican member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, is also under legal review.
The implications of this case extend beyond the FTC and the Federal Reserve. If the Supreme Court grants the administration’s request, it could allow future presidents to unilaterally remove members of many independent agencies, thereby centralizing power in the executive branch and potentially altering the landscape of regulatory oversight in the United States.
The ongoing legal battle highlights the broader tensions between executive authority and the independence of federal agencies. With the Supreme Court set to address this issue, the outcome could mark a significant shift in the balance of power and its implications for regulatory governance in the U.S.