In a pivotal case that could reshape the landscape of independent agencies, the Supreme Court announced on Monday its intention to determine whether President Donald Trump has the power to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) without cause. This decision not only tests the president's removal authority but also raises significant questions about the protections established by Congress to safeguard independent agencies from political influence.
The Supreme Court issued a brief order allowing President Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the court deliberates on the case. The arguments are set to be heard in the upcoming December session, with the court's stay remaining in effect until a ruling is made. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed dissent regarding the majority's decision to permit Slaughter's removal.
The central issue at hand is whether the removal protections for FTC members infringe upon the principle of separation of powers. If the court finds these protections unconstitutional, it may overturn a significant precedent established in 1935, which allowed Congress to impose removal restrictions on officials of independent agencies. The justices will also explore whether federal courts have the authority to prevent an individual from being removed from public office, as has been the case in challenges regarding Trump's dismissals of Democratic appointees.
In her dissent, Justice Kagan articulated concerns that the Supreme Court is effectively granting full control of certain independent agencies to the president, contradicting Congress's intentions to protect these bodies from political pressures. Kagan warned that this could undermine the agencies' bipartisanship and independence.
Attorney General Pam Bondi praised the Supreme Court's decision, deeming it a significant victory for the president’s executive authority. In a social media post, Bondi emphasized that this ruling supports the notion that the president, rather than lower court judges, holds hiring and firing power over executive officials. She asserted that the administration will continue to challenge lower court rulings to defend Trump's agenda.
This legal battle originated from President Trump's attempt to remove Slaughter from her role at the FTC. A lower court previously ruled that Trump's actions violated a 1914 law restricting the removal of FTC commissioners to instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance, ultimately ordering her reinstatement. Earlier this month, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily halted the lower court's order while the Supreme Court considered the Trump administration's emergency appeal.
The ongoing dispute reflects a broader trend of emergency appeals related to Trump's efforts to dismiss Democratic appointees from independent agencies. Conservative justices have thus far supported the president's authority to remove officials without cause, which raises significant concerns about the future of the nearly 90-year-old precedent that has historically protected FTC members from arbitrary dismissal. The Humphrey's Executor v. United States decision in 1935 affirmed that Congress could insulate certain officials from removal without cause if they perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.
In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has increasingly chipped away at this precedent. Notably, in 2020, the Supreme Court deemed the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unconstitutional, and the following year, it ruled against the Federal Housing Finance Agency's leadership structure, which limited presidential removal authority.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal agencies and the balance of power between the presidency and Congress. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments, both sides are poised to make compelling cases regarding the president's authority and the necessity of removing bureaucratic protections in an evolving political landscape.
