On Monday, the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in a 6-3 decision, affirming President Donald Trump's termination of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. This ruling, at least on an interim basis, highlights the Court's intention to expedite the review of a crucial legal dispute regarding the scope of executive power in the United States. While the justices did not provide an explanation for their decision, it aligns with a pattern observed in recent orders from the conservative majority, which tends to favor broad deference to the president concerning the staffing of independent agencies that hold substantial executive authority.
President Trump removed Slaughter, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, citing policy differences rather than any specific cause. This move has raised questions about the limits of presidential authority in dismissing independent agency commissioners. In contrast, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the text of federal law explicitly permits the removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioners only for cause. They referenced the longstanding precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Humphrey's Executor v. US, which supports these protections.
Justice Kagan articulated a strong dissent, stating, "The president cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC Commissioner without any reason." She emphasized that altering this precedent would require the Court to overturn the established rule articulated in Humphrey's, thereby undermining Congress's judgment regarding agency design. Kagan accused the majority of effectively overruling Humphrey's through an emergency decision without thorough briefing or argument, suggesting that the conservative majority was eager to expand presidential powers.
The Supreme Court plans to directly address the Humphrey's Executor precedent in a hearing scheduled for December. This hearing will explore whether the removal protections for members of the FTC infringe upon the principle of separation of powers and whether Humphrey's should be overturned. The Court’s order indicates that this case will serve as a pivotal mechanism for resolving vital questions regarding presidential authority across over 50 independent agencies and corporations within the executive branch.
In a separate order, the Supreme Court declined to expedite appeals from two other Trump-fired officials: Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Both individuals are contesting Trump's actions under the same Humphrey's precedent. The Court's decision to prioritize the Slaughter case suggests a strategic focus on clarifying the boundaries of presidential power and its implications for independent regulatory bodies in the future.
