On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling supporting President Donald Trump’s decision to terminate Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, at least temporarily. The justices announced they would fast-track a review of this pivotal case concerning the extent of executive authority.
While the Court did not elaborate on its ruling, it aligns with a pattern observed in recent directives from the conservative majority, which has shown considerable deference to the president regarding the appointment and removal of officials in independent agencies wielding significant power.
Trump’s dismissal of Slaughter, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, occurred without cause, with the president citing policy differences as the reason for her removal.
Dissenting justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued against the majority’s decision, referencing federal statutes that stipulate FTC commissioners can only be removed for cause, along with the longstanding Supreme Court precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. US, which affirms these requirements.
Kagan expressed in her dissent, “The president cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC Commissioner without any reason. To reach a different result requires reversing the rule stated in Humphrey’s: It entails overriding rather than accepting Congress’s judgment about agency design.”
She further critiqued the majority for seemingly overturning the Humphrey’s ruling without a formal process, stating, “The majority may be raring to take that action. But until the deed is done, Humphrey’s controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him.”
The Court is set to directly address this precedent in a hearing scheduled for December, which will explore whether the removal protections for FTC members infringe upon the principles of separation of powers, and whether the Humphrey’s decision is poised to be overturned.
In a separate action, the Court declined to fast-track appeals from Cathy Harris and Gwynne Wilcox, both former members of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board, respectively, who have challenged Trump’s removal decisions based on the Humphrey’s ruling.
Also Read : Harry Styles Achieves Sub-Three Hour Finish at Berlin Marathon
This development indicates that the Court plans to use the Slaughter case as a key reference point for resolving substantial questions regarding presidential authority across over 50 independent agencies and corporations within the executive branch.
