The Supreme Court granted President Donald Trump’s request to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter on Monday while announcing it will hear arguments in December that could overturn a 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential control over independent agencies.
In a 6-3 decision issued September 22, the Supreme Court granted a stay of lower court rulings that had protected Slaughter from removal, while simultaneously agreeing to expedite review of the landmark 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The ruling marks the latest in a series of emergency orders by the conservative majority allowing Trump to fire independent agency officials despite congressional protections.
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner appointed to the Federal Trade Commission in 2018 during Trump’s first term and reconfirmed by President Biden, was among two Democratic FTC commissioners fired by Trump on March 18, 2025. Trump’s dismissal came without citing any of the statutory grounds required under federal law, which permits removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Following her termination, Slaughter filed a lawsuit challenging the firing as illegal under both federal statute and Supreme Court precedent. In July, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in Slaughter’s favor, ordering her reinstatement to the FTC. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this decision in September, finding that Trump’s actions violated the clearly established precedent in Humphrey’s Executor.
The Supreme Court’s brief unsigned order stayed the lower courts’ decisions while scheduling the case for December arguments. The Court will examine two critical questions: whether statutory removal protections for FTC members violate separation of powers principles and whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overruled, and whether federal courts can prevent someone’s removal from public office.
The majority provided no explanation for granting the stay, following the typical practice for emergency docket decisions. Chief Justice John Roberts, who had previously issued a temporary stay on September 8, formalized the Court’s position in Monday’s order.
Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, condemning the majority’s use of the emergency docket to effectively overturn established precedent.
Kagan criticized the pattern of emergency rulings that have allowed Trump to fire officials from multiple independent agencies this year, including members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The dissenting justices argued that until Humphrey’s Executor is formally overturned, it remains controlling law that prevents the President from exercising unlimited removal power over independent agency commissioners.
Humphrey’s Executor v. United States was decided unanimously in 1935 when the Supreme Court prevented President Franklin Roosevelt from firing an FTC commissioner without cause. The decision established that Congress could protect independent agencies from undue presidential influence by requiring “good cause” for removal.
The Court’s decision extends Trump’s control over multiple regulatory bodies designed by Congress to operate with bipartisan independence. The FTC, now reduced to only Republican commissioners Andrew Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak, can operate with this reduced membership while Mark Meador awaits Senate confirmation for the third Republican seat.
This restructuring eliminates the potential for partisan deadlocks on agency decisions and gives the administration complete control over antitrust enforcement and consumer protection policies.
The December arguments will determine whether this framework survives in the modern era of expansive executive power theories. Legal scholars suggest overturning Humphrey’s Executor would grant presidents unprecedented authority over agencies responsible for enforcing antitrust laws, labor regulations, and financial oversight.
A decision is expected by the end of the 2025 term.
