A bold move by the Supreme Court has sparked controversy and left many questioning the limits of executive power. **The Court's decision to uphold President Trump's firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter has sent shockwaves through legal circles.**
On September 22, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Trump's decision to terminate Slaughter, a move that was met with dissent from three justices. The Court's decision, without explanation, aligns with recent conservative-majority rulings that grant broad authority to the president over staffing independent agencies.
But here's where it gets controversial: Trump removed Slaughter without cause, citing mere policy differences. This action directly contradicts federal law, which states that FTC commissioners can only be removed for cause, and a longstanding precedent set by Humphrey's Executor v US.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissenting opinion, wrote: "The president cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC Commissioner without any reason. To reach a different result requires reversing the rule stated in Humphrey's: It entails overriding rather than accepting Congress's judgment about agency design."
Kagan further accused the majority of effectively overruling Humphrey's without explicitly stating so, or providing an opportunity for briefing or argument. She wrote, "The majority may be raring to take that action, but until the deed is done, Humphrey's controls, and prevents the majority from giving the President the unlimited removal power Congress denied him."
And this is the part most people miss: the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a direct challenge to Humphrey's precedent during a December hearing. The case will examine whether removal protections for FTC members violate the separation of powers, and if Humphrey's should be overturned.
In a separate order, the Court declined to expedite appeals by two other Trump-fired members of independent agencies, suggesting that the Slaughter case will be the primary vehicle for resolving critical questions of presidential power across the executive branch.
So, what do you think? Is the Court overstepping its bounds by granting the president such broad authority? Or is this a necessary move to ensure efficient governance? We'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
