Supreme Court rules presidential removal powers extend over FTC members

The Supreme Court ruled that the removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members are unconstitutional, thereby enhancing presidential authority over independent agencies. The 6-3 decision, articulated by Chief Justice John Roberts, overturned a 90-year precedent limiting presidential power to dismiss officials without cause.

WTX News

7 min read
0

/

Supreme Court rules presidential removal powers extend over FTC members

Get you up to speed: Supreme Court expands presidential firing power, overturning 90-year-old ruling

The Supreme Court ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional, overturning a 90-year precedent. The decision expands presidential authority over independent agencies and was issued in the case Trump v. Slaughter.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to impact over two dozen independent agencies, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board, by altering their removal protections. The Court specifically noted that its decision does not affect the constitutionality of removal restrictions for the Federal Reserve or the tenure protections for judges on certain federal courts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn a 90-year-old precedent regarding the removal protections for Federal Trade Commission members has drawn sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned the decision could transform independent agencies into purely executive bodies. President Trump praised the ruling as a significant enhancement of presidential authority, which may lead to further changes in the operational structure of various independent commissions.

What remains unclear — The Supreme Court did not address the constitutionality of removal restrictions for members of the Federal Reserve or tenure protections for judges on the U.S. Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims.

Supreme Court rules presidential removal powers extend over FTC members

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission are unconstitutional and overturned a 90-year-old decision that allowed Congress to shield members of certain independent agencies from being fired by the president at will.

The decision from the high court expands the president’s power over many independent boards and commissions, which Congress had insulated from political pressure by saying their members could only be removed by the president for cause.

In a 1935 decision in a case known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which involved removal protections for the FTC, the Supreme Court said Congress could restrict the president’s ability to fire officials from multi-member agencies at will. 

But the ruling from the high court’s conservative majority in the case Trump v. Slaughter overturns that 90-year-old decision and marks the culmination of a years-long weakening of the New Deal-era precedent. 

The court’s ruling

The ruling was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the majority, joined by the other conservative justices. The three liberals dissented, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor read a summary of her dissent from the bench, a rare occurrence that signals strong disagreement with a decision. Roberts wrote that limits on the president’s ability to fire those who wield executive power on his behalf infringe on his constitutional authority.

The FTC of today, the court’s majority found, “unquestionably” exercises executive powers and therefore must be under the president’s control.

“Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The decision is likely to have ramifications beyond the FTC. Congress has created more than two dozen multi-member agencies led by officials who can be removed by the president only for cause, which typically means instances of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. Among those agencies likely to be affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling are the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

In a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor warned that while those agencies remain, they now take on a new form that differs from what Congress intended when they were created.

“Put simply, today the majority reshapes our Government. Dozens of independent commissions are now likely to become purely executive agencies, shifting tremendous power over broad swaths of American life into the President’s hands,” she wrote.

President Trump cheered the decision as the “Greatest Increase in Presidential Power in the last 100 years. Such a Monumental Ruling at such an important time!”

The Slaughter case

Mr. Trump has sought to test the bounds of his executive power since returning to the White House for his second term in January 2025, including by firing a slew of officials appointed by Democratic presidents at multi-member boards and commissions without cause.

Among those was Rebecca Slaughter, whom Mr. Trump appointed to the FTC during his first term. She was reappointed to the trade commission by President Joe Biden. 

Slaughter was informed in March 2025 that her service on the FTC was “inconsistent” with the Trump administration’s priorities and was fired from her post without cause. That clashed with the law that established the FTC in 1914, when Congress said commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.

Slaughter filed a lawsuit challenging her removal and argued Mr. Trump broke the law when he fired her. A federal district court ruled in her favor and ordered Slaughter to be reinstated to her post. The U.S. appeals court in Washington, D.C., eventually agreed that she could continue in her job at the trade commission, but last September, the Supreme Court allowed Mr. Trump to fire her while it considered the legality of removal protections for FTC members.

Before agreeing to decide Slaughter’s case, the Supreme Court had also cleared the way for Mr. Trump to oust members of the National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board and Consumer Product Safety Commission. But the high court has so far spared two other officials from removal while litigation continues: Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, and Shira Perlmutter, the register of copyrights.

The justices heard arguments in January over whether to allow Mr. Trump to fire Cook from the Fed Board. The Supreme Court has indicated before that it views the Fed differently than other independent agencies, calling it a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks.”

In an opinion also authored by Roberts, the high court rejected Mr. Trump’s attempt to fire Cook while the challenge to her removal moved forward. 

The Supreme Court reiterated in its ruling involving the FTC that it does not implicate the constitutionality of the Fed’s removal restrictions. It also stressed that the decision does not address tenure protections for judges on the U.S. Tax Court or the Court of Federal Claims, with Roberts writing that the justices are leaving “those questions for another day.”

“All we do today is recognize what has been clear for a century — that those who fall within the President’s ‘general administrative control’ must be removable by the President at will,” he wrote.

The high court’s decision in Slaughter’s case is the latest in a line of recent decisions that chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor and expanded the president’s power over independent agencies. The Supreme Court invalidated removal protections for the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2020 and the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2021.

Responses

    Sarah Mitchell·

    Great article! This really puts things into perspective. I appreciate the thorough research and balanced viewpoint.

    James Anderson·

    Interesting read, though I think there are some points that could have been explored further. Would love to see a follow-up on this topic.

    Emma Thompson·

    Thanks for sharing this! I had no idea about some of these details. Definitely bookmarking this for future reference.

    Michael Chen·

    Well written and informative. The examples provided really help illustrate the main points effectively.

    Olivia Rodriguez·

    This is exactly what I was looking for! Clear, concise, and very helpful. Keep up the excellent work!

Stay Updated

Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox.

No spam, unsubscribe at any time.