The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for December 8 to review President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. This case represents a significant legal test of the executive branch’s authority over independent agencies, potentially challenging a key precedent from the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States decision. The justices’ approach to this case could reshape the boundaries of presidential power, impacting the balance of authority among the three branches of government.
Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter, a lone Democrat on the FTC, was followed by a lawsuit arguing that her termination was illegal. A lower court temporarily reinstated Slaughter to her position, but the Trump administration appealed the decision, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene. The Court’s agreement to hear the case signals an intent to revisit the Humphrey’s Executor precedent, which has traditionally limited presidential power to remove agency heads without just cause. The justices have directed both parties to address the central questions of whether the removal protections for FTC members violate the separation of powers and whether the existing precedent should be overturned.
The case is part of a series of legal challenges arising from Trump’s actions against other Democratic appointees. Gwynne Wilcox, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member, and Cathy Harris, a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member, were also terminated by the Trump administration, leading to pending legal battles. In May, the Supreme Court granted Trump’s request to remove Wilcox and Harris, though it did not explicitly invoke the Humphrey’s Executor precedent. This pattern of firings and subsequent legal challenges underscores the broader implications of the Court’s potential intervention in executive authority.
This legal development comes as the Supreme Court prepares to address another high-profile case concerning Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The upcoming oral arguments in January may provide insight into how the justices plan to handle similar disputes. The outcome of the Slaughter case could influence the resolution of Trump’s efforts to oust Cook, highlighting the Court’s role in shaping executive power in the United States. The Court’s interpretation of these cases may set important legal precedents that will affect the operations of independent agencies and the limits of presidential authority for years to come.