Supreme Court Grants Stay Enabling Presidential Removal of FTC Commissioner Amid Challenge to Historic Precedent

Publication Date: September 22, 2025

Overview

In a pivotal move, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted a stay allowing President Donald J. Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without specified cause, while fast-tracking a review of longstanding legal protections for independent agency officials. This action revives debates on executive power, potentially reshaping how presidents oversee regulatory bodies that influence competition, consumer protection, and economic policy. The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between presidential authority and congressional designs for agency independence, affecting administrations across the political spectrum.

Facts

The Supreme Court’s order addresses a dispute stemming from President Trump’s attempt to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.

On July 17, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order (No. 25–cv–909, ECF Doc. 52) that the Supreme Court has now stayed, effectively permitting the removal pending further review.
The Court treated the stay application as a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment and granted it, directing parties to brief and argue two key questions: (1) Whether statutory removal protections for FTC members violate the separation of powers, and if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled; (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office through equitable or legal relief.
The Clerk was directed to set a briefing schedule for arguments in the December 2025 session.
The stay will terminate upon the issuance of the Court’s final judgment.
This follows similar stays earlier in 2025 allowing removals from agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U.S. ___ (2025)), Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission (Trump v. Boyle, 606 U.S. ___ (2025)). For historical context, the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 41) limits presidential removal of commissioners to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” In Humphrey’s Executor (1935), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld such restrictions for agencies with quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions, affirming Congress’s authority to insulate them from unchecked executive control.

Perspectives

The decision draws from direct positions articulated by involved parties through official statements, court filings, and publications, reflecting a spectrum of views on executive authority and agency independence.

Trump Administration: In a February 2025 White House fact sheet, the administration asserted that Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in the President, requiring supervision over all executive branch officials, including those in independent agencies like the FTC. It emphasized that such agencies have wielded significant power without presidential oversight, and reforms are needed to ensure democratic accountability, with the President interpreting laws for the executive branch rather than allowing conflicting agency views.
FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson: In a March 2025 statement on the removals of Commissioners Slaughter and Bedoya, Ferguson affirmed the President’s constitutional authority, stating, “President Donald J. Trump is the head of the executive branch and is vested with all of the executive power in our government. I have no doubts about his constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government.”
FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter: As the respondent in the case, Slaughter’s position, grounded in her district court challenge, maintains that her removal without cause directly violates the FTC Act’s for-cause protections, which safeguard the agency’s bipartisan and independent structure to prevent undue political interference in its regulatory duties.
U.S. Supreme Court Dissenting Justices (Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson): In the dissent, Justice Kagan argued that the stay improperly enables the President to discharge commissioners without cause, contrary to congressional statutes designed for “multi-member, bipartisan commissions” like the FTC. She emphasized that this overrides Congress’s judgment on agency design and contravenes Humphrey’s Executor, warning it transfers authority from Congress to the President and reshapes separation of powers.
Former FTC General Counsel Alden Abbott: In a September 22, 2025, post on X, Abbott, now a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, viewed the 6-3 ruling as effectively dismantling Humphrey’s Executor, stating it “apparently ‘Slaughtered’ Humphrey’s Executor,” signaling support for reevaluating precedents that limit presidential control over regulatory bodies.

Considerations

Expanding presidential removal powers over independent agencies could streamline executive alignment with policy priorities but risks politicizing nonpartisan regulatory functions, impacting future Democratic or Republican administrations equally.
Overruling Humphrey’s Executor may erode bipartisan safeguards in agencies like the FTC, potentially leading to more volatile enforcement of antitrust and consumer laws in the short term, while fostering greater voter accountability in the long term.
This trend strengthens executive branch efficiency by reducing bureaucratic insulation but could weaken checks on power, prompting Congress to revisit statutes for clearer agency structures.
Short-term effects include immediate shifts in FTC composition and priorities; long-term, it may inspire broader reforms to balance independence with oversight, ensuring agencies remain responsive without compromising expertise.