The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a ruling with potentially seismic consequences for the balance of power within the federal government. On Monday, justices will hear arguments concerning President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove a Federal Trade Commission member, Rebecca Slaughter, without justification – a move that challenges a 90-year-old legal precedent.
Slaughter, a Democrat, was dismissed before her term’s completion, prompting a lawsuit arguing the action violated established protections. These protections stem from a 1935 Supreme Court ruling, *Humphrey’s Executor*, which limited a president’s ability to arbitrarily remove heads of independent agencies like the FTC.
The core of the dispute rests on the 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act, which specifically restricts presidential removal of FTC members to cases of demonstrable “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Slaughter’s legal team successfully argued a lower court judge agreed with their assessment, ordering her reinstatement.
However, that decision was temporarily halted by the Supreme Court in September, allowing Slaughter’s removal to stand while the justices deliberate. This pause signals a willingness among the court’s conservative majority to potentially dismantle the safeguards established by *Humphrey’s Executor*.
Weakening or overturning *Humphrey’s Executor* could dramatically expand presidential authority, allowing future administrations to more easily replace members of key regulatory agencies – including the National Labor Relations Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission – with appointees of their choosing.
The ideological divide on the court was evident in the decision to hear the case, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The justices have specifically requested arguments addressing whether the existing removal protections violate the separation of powers and whether *Humphrey’s Executor* should be overturned.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has directly urged the court to overrule *Humphrey’s Executor*, arguing the FTC’s current authority far exceeds its original scope in 1935. He contends that shielding agencies from presidential control fundamentally undermines the Constitution’s structure and the liberties it protects.
A decision is anticipated by the end of June. This case, *Trump v. Slaughter*, is one of four this term focusing on critical separation of powers issues and the “unitary executive theory” – the idea that the president holds ultimate control over the executive branch.
Critics express concern that these cases could erode vital protections against presidential overreach, regardless of the party in power. The court’s consideration of this case arrives alongside similar lawsuits brought by other Trump-fired Democratic board members, including those from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The arguments in *Trump v. Slaughter* will be closely scrutinized, as they are expected to influence the court’s approach to a related case concerning Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, scheduled for January. This case is part of a broader pattern of sweeping personnel changes enacted during Trump’s presidency.
Throughout his time in office, Trump issued hundreds of executive orders and initiated significant personnel actions, restructuring federal agencies and leading to widespread layoffs, even among leaders previously considered insulated from presidential interference.
