Supreme Court Allows Trump to Remove FTC’s Slaughter Pending Landmark Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump may proceed with the removal of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), while the Court prepares to hear a broader constitutional challenge later this year.

The ruling, issued on September 22, 2025, temporarily suspends lower court decisions that had reinstated Slaughter after she was dismissed in March. Though provisional, the order signals the Court’s willingness to revisit a bedrock precedent governing presidential authority over independent agencies.

Background of the Dispute

In March, Trump dismissed both Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, citing the need to reshape the FTC’s leadership. However, federal law grants commissioners tenure protection, allowing removal only “for cause”—such as misconduct or neglect of duty.

Slaughter challenged her dismissal, and in July, a federal district judge ordered her reinstatement. The D.C. Circuit upheld that ruling, but the Trump administration appealed, arguing that statutory protections unduly restrict the president’s constitutional power to control the executive branch.

Supreme Court’s Interim Ruling

By granting Trump’s request for a stay, the Court allows Slaughter’s removal to remain in effect until a full hearing scheduled for December 2025. At issue is whether the longstanding precedent from Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935)—which upheld protections for FTC commissioners—remains valid in today’s context.

The Trump administration argues that the modern FTC exercises sweeping executive powers, from antitrust enforcement to consumer protection, and therefore should be fully accountable to the president. Opponents counter that stripping tenure protections would destroy the independence of agencies designed to act outside partisan influence.

Legal and Political Stakes

The stakes are enormous. A ruling in Trump’s favor could expand presidential authority across the federal government, potentially affecting other agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Merit Systems Protection Board.

Critics warn that such a shift would erode the bipartisan character of regulatory agencies, leaving them vulnerable to political swings with each administration. Proponents argue that the president must have clear authority over executive officials to ensure accountability.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the interim order. Kagan wrote that weakening independence at the FTC risks “handing unchecked control over regulatory power to the presidency,” undermining the separation of powers.

Looking Ahead

The Court will hear oral arguments in December, with a decision expected in 2026. Legal scholars widely view the case as the most significant test of executive power versus agency independence in nearly a century.

For now, Slaughter remains removed from her position, and the FTC continues to operate under a reshaped lineup more favorable to Trump. The outcome of this case could redefine not just the FTC’s future, but the entire architecture of the U.S. administrative state.