On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling allowing President Trump to fire a leader of the Federal Trade Commission (F.T.C.), setting the stage for a court battle over a nearly 90-year-old limitation on executive power concerning independent agencies. This emergency order, delivered by a divided court, grants President Trump the authority to dismiss Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, an F.T.C. commissioner, while also indicating that the court is prepared to hear arguments on the case in December. This move suggests that a majority of justices may be inclined to revisit a landmark precedent that restricts presidential authority.
In March, President Trump dismissed Ms. Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, two Democratic members of the F.T.C., an agency responsible for enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws. The F.T.C. typically consists of five commissioners—three affiliated with the president's party and two from the opposing party. Following their dismissals, both commissioners announced plans to contest their terminations in court, referencing the pivotal 1935 Supreme Court case, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which also dealt with the firing of an F.T.C. commissioner.
In its brief ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court stated that it would examine the broader implications of whether to overturn the existing precedent that has historically prevented presidents from removing independent regulators without valid cause, particularly when disagreements arise over policy. The court’s conservative majority’s decision to allow Mr. Trump to fire Ms. Slaughter faced dissent from the three liberal justices.
Justice Elena Kagan voiced strong opposition, asserting that the conservative justices had effectively granted the president control over agencies that Congress had intended to shield from partisan influence. She remarked that the court’s majority has, through their decisions, “handed full control of all those agencies to the president.” Justice Kagan emphasized that this ruling permits the president to remove any agency member for any reason, thus jeopardizing the agencies’ bipartisan nature and independence.
Justice Kagan drew parallels to the 1935 case, where the Supreme Court rejected a claim of presidential prerogative similar to what is being argued now. She expressed concern that while a majority of justices seem eager to overturn established precedent, it remains in effect for the time being. Furthermore, she criticized the court's use of its emergency docket, stating it should not facilitate a shift of governmental authority from Congress to the president, thereby altering the nation’s separation of powers.
The court's emergency applications often lack the thorough consideration typical of merits cases, which usually undergo extensive briefing and oral arguments. Justice Kagan’s dissent was supported by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In a series of cases, the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to potentially overrule the precedent that protects agency heads from presidential dismissal. However, formal actions to do so have not yet been taken. The justices are also deliberating on a request from the Trump administration to remove Lisa Cook, a governor of the Federal Reserve, though they have signaled that the central bank may be insulated from presidential interference.
In the F.T.C. case, both Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Bedoya contested their firings, but Mr. Bedoya ultimately resigned in June, citing financial constraints during the ongoing legal battle. Meanwhile, Ms. Slaughter has pressed on with her lawsuit, asserting that her termination was unwarranted and that she should be reinstated. In July, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of Ms. Slaughter, declaring her dismissal illegal and affirming her status as a “rightful member” of the agency. Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia emphasized that the longstanding Supreme Court precedent rendered her removal unlawful.
Following this ruling, the Trump administration sought a stay from the appeals court. In early September, a split appeals court panel reinstated Ms. Slaughter, asserting that the president had terminated her without just cause. The panel stated that a commissioner cannot be dismissed unless there are grounds of “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” Subsequently, the Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and permit the president to proceed with Ms. Slaughter’s termination.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended in court filings that the justices should endorse the president’s authority to fire Ms. Slaughter, arguing that lower courts have misapplied Supreme Court precedent. He claimed that the F.T.C. has evolved significantly over the decades and accumulated considerable executive power. Mr. Sauer asserted that the F.T.C. case parallels other federal agency firings that the justices have allowed, including a July decision permitting the dismissal of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees the safety of consumer products such as toys and electronics.
