Following his second election victory, President Trump signed an executive order expanding presidential authority over independent agencies. This was part of a broader campaign to consolidate control over regulatory bodies like the FTC, SEC, FCC, and NLRB. And part of that control was, no surprise, firing people.
Firings Spark Legal Storm
You may have caught wind of Trump’s firing of a couple of FTC Democrats earlier this year, a decision that reverberated across Washington’s legal and political landscape.
The FTC, long regarded as an independent agency charged with enforcing antitrust and consumer protection laws, has historically operated with a measure of autonomy from the White House. But in March, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya received abrupt notice that their service was “inconsistent” with the administration’s priorities. Slaughter had originally been nominated by Trump himself in 2018 before being reappointed by President Biden.
Meanwhile, Andrew Ferguson, Trump’s handpicked FTC chair, pressed forward with an agenda closely aligned with White House priorities, including workshops on hot-button issues like gender-affirming care and online content moderation. Ferguson insisted publicly that he had “no doubts” about the president’s authority to remove commissioners at will. The problem? This rationale ran headlong into Supreme Court precedent shielding such commissioners from removal for mere policy disagreements.
Slaughter didn’t mince words. She called her firing “illegal,” arguing it violates both statutory text and clear judicial precedent. Bedoya echoed her concerns, warning that stripping the FTC of its independence risks making it a captive to the president’s business allies rather than a watchdog for ordinary Americans. The two commissioners soon took the matter to federal court.
Judge Rules Trump Overstepped
The legal challenge was swift: Slaughter and Bedoya argued that her removal violated the very statutory protections designed to shield FTC commissioners from political whiplash—a principle Congress enshrined nearly a century ago to ensure continuity and expertise in economic oversight. Bedoya ultimately resigned from the lawsuit under financial duress as his status languished in legal limbo, his claims dismissed as moot.
Judge Loren L. AliKhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wasted little time cutting through the administration’s arguments. In her decision, she held that the constitutional protections for FTC commissioners remain firmly intact, undisturbed by shifting political winds or presidential preference. “Ms. Slaughter’s purported removal was unlawful and without legal effect,” Judge AliKhan wrote, underscoring that the president cannot simply sweep aside statutory guardrails in pursuit of a more compliant commission.
Slaughter greeted the decision as a vindication not just of her own tenure but of Congress’s intent: agencies like the FTC were built to buffer the economy from abrupt policy reversals and partisan interference. “The law is clear,” she said, “and I look forward to getting back to work.”
The White House, undeterred, appealed to the D.C. Circuit, arguing that Supreme Court precedent supports broad presidential removal powers over executive officers.
Appeals Court Strikes Down Firing
The court of appeals delivered a pointed rebuke to Trump, though the panel was split 2-1. The majority found that Slaughter’s dismissal was not only improper, but flatly illegal under the governing statute.
The court’s opinion zeroed in on the statutory protections afforded to FTC commissioners, noting that removal is permitted only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”—none of which were even alleged in Slaughter’s case. Instead, the administration’s rationale boiled down to a political preference: Slaughter’s continued service was deemed by Trump to be “inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.”
The D.C. Circuit was unsparing in its assessment, concluding that the government’s arguments had “no prospect of success” and refusing to grant a stay that would have kept Slaughter out of office pending further litigation. Trump’s people responded with characteristic urgency, petitioning the Supreme Court to intervene. They filed an emergency application mere days after Slaughter’s return to office, asking the justices to clear the way for her removal.
The Administration framed the dispute as a test of executive power over independent agencies. In its brief, the Trump team argued that the president must have unfettered authority to “put his own people in place,” even in agencies historically buffered from political interference by statutory protections. The administration made clear its intent to challenge Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S., the 1935 precedent that has served as a constitutional guardrail for agency independence for nearly a century.
SCOTUS Grants Trump a Temporary Win
SCOTUS swiftly changed the direction of the case. In a terse order on September 22, the Court’s conservative majority allowed Trump to go through with the emblematic slaughter of Slaughter. As it was part of the emergency docket, the justices in the majority did not provide an explanation for their reasoning.
They did signal that they would take up the broader constitutional question in December: whether to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 case that has long limited presidential power to remove FTC commissioners without cause. For now, though, the majority handed Trump an immediate win, granting him authority to purge the agency of dissenting voices while litigation continues.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has already signaled a willingness to side with executive prerogative in similar cases, issuing orders that have allowed Trump to remove regulators at other independent agencies while litigation proceeds.
Kagan Warns of Eroding Checks and Balances
But just like with the other cases, the emergency order in this case was not unanimous. The other instances of Trump attempting to fire agency personnel have prompted dissents from the liberal wing, who warn that such actions undermine congressional intent and erode the separation of powers. This case was no exception. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, issued a pointed dissent that read less like a procedural objection and more like a warning shot.
In her view, the Court’s decision to let President Trump fire an FTC commissioner — without cause and in direct defiance of congressional statute — marks a dangerous erosion of agency independence. She warns that the majority, order by order, is handing “full control of all those agencies to the president,” extinguishing the very independence and balance Congress intended.
Kagan’s dissent is not just about this case; it’s a broader indictment of the Court’s willingness to use its emergency docket to reshape the separation of powers. The Justice insists that precedent, not presidential whim, should govern agency removals — at least until the Court formally overrules Humphrey’s Executor. For now, she writes, Congress’s judgment about agency design must prevail. The majority’s stay, she concludes, is both premature and deeply consequential: it transfers authority from Congress to the president and risks rewriting the architecture of American governance overnight.
Related Resources:
- A Civil Response: Government Workers Prepare for Attempted Purges by the Trump Administration (FindLaw's Courtside)
- SCOTUS Gives (Another) Thumbs Up on Trump's Firing Federal Employees Charged With Protecting U.S. Consumers (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
- SCOTUS Unfreezes Trump's Plan to Slash Federal Agencies (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
