The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Monday over President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, in a case that could reshape the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
The Trump administration asked justices to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which had reinstated Slaughter, citing long-standing laws that protect commissioners at the FTC and several other independent agencies from being removed without cause. While the case directly concerns Slaughter, legal experts warn it could have far-reaching implications for presidential authority over federal agencies.
Critics say the outcome could determine whether the president can override congressional protections for agency officials. Lauren Miller Karalunas of the Brennan Center for Justice noted that the Court may effectively decide whether a president can unilaterally change laws created by Congress. Slaughter’s firing is part of a broader trend in which Trump removed numerous independent board members and watchdog officials, despite legal safeguards.
The administration challenges a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, which upheld laws restricting presidential removal of members of agencies performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. Trump dismissed Slaughter and fellow commissioner Alvaro Bedoya in March. Bedoya later dropped his challenge, while Slaughter successfully appealed her removal in the D.C. Circuit, which ordered her reinstatement—a ruling temporarily blocked by the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department argued the FTC and similar agencies perform executive functions, including rulemaking, case adjudication, and enforcement, and should fall under presidential authority. Officials contend that Congress cannot shift executive accountability to unelected agency heads while insulating them from presidential control.
Slaughter and her legal team countered that Congress deliberately designed independent agencies to limit presidential control and ensure impartial decision-making. They argue that Trump’s attempt to remove her bypasses legislative intent and threatens long-standing protections for agency independence.
Legal scholars caution that a ruling in favor of Trump could allow the president to exercise unprecedented control over federal agencies, potentially affecting everything from patent approvals to regulatory enforcement. Supporters of Slaughter argue that independent boards like the FTC serve as a compromise between the presidency and Congress, safeguarding policy decisions from short-term political influence.
In recent years, the Court has allowed presidents to remove officials at agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, signaling potential support for expanded presidential authority. Only a few of the dozens of officials removed under Trump remain in their roles while legal challenges proceed, including Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook and Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter.
Justices will consider whether the protections for Slaughter and other officials can withstand executive power or whether presidential control can override long-standing statutory safeguards. Depending on the ruling, the case could fundamentally reshape American governance, affecting the independence of agencies and the security of career federal employees.