Supreme Court Conservatives Lean Toward Supporting Trump in Landmark FTC Firing Case
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to rule in favor of former President Donald Trump in a pivotal case concerning the limits of presidential power to remove commissioners from independent federal agencies, specifically the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
At the heart of the case is Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner at the FTC whom Trump sought to remove without cause. The dispute centers on the nearly century-old legal precedent set by the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ruling, which protects independent agency members from at-will dismissal by the president. This precedent has been a cornerstone of the separation of powers, ensuring that certain regulatory agencies maintain insulation from direct presidential control.
During oral arguments held in December 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism about maintaining these removal protections. They questioned whether independent agencies like the FTC, which have grown in power and now execute over 80 federal laws on diverse issues—from credit cards to contact lenses—should remain shielded from direct presidential oversight.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the Constitution vests executive power solely in the president and that removal restrictions limit his ability to ensure faithful execution of laws. Sauer contended that since the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, the FTC has evolved to perform significant executive functions, warranting a reconsideration of removal protections.
Lower courts have been split in response to Trump’s firing of Slaughter. A federal district court initially sided with Slaughter, ordering her reinstatement. This was followed by a temporary appeal court order allowing her removal, then later restoring her to the FTC. The Supreme Court intervened by staying her reinstatement, effectively permitting Trump to proceed with the dismissal while legal questions about presidential removal power remain unresolved.
The liberal justices strongly defended the current protections as essential for protecting institutional independence from political interference. They warned that overturning Humphrey’s Executor could destabilize crucial American governance structures. Notably, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented from the stay permitting Slaughter’s dismissal, underscoring the constitutional concerns at stake.
This case has broader implications beyond the FTC. Should the Court uphold Trump’s authority to remove commissioners at will, it would potentially extend presidential control over a wide array of independent agencies regulating the economy, stock markets, campaign finance, and communications. Critics argue this shift could upset the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
Legal experts highlight that this challenge to independent agency protections is part of a growing trend where the Supreme Court has chipped away at such safeguards in recent years, including rulings that presidents can remove single directors of key agencies.
Summing up the stakes, law professor Kim Wehle noted that the decision will either reaffirm the nearly century-old doctrine established in Humphrey’s Executor or pivot the Court towards endorsing near-absolute presidential control of independent regulatory bodies.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling is awaited with significant anticipation, as it will define the future balance of power between the presidency and Congress in overseeing federal regulatory agencies.