President Donald Trump just scored a temporary win against the bureaucratic machine as the Supreme Court greenlights his firing of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner without cause.
Fox News reported that on Monday, the Supreme Court issued an order allowing Trump to dismiss FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a decision that’s stirring the pot in a long-standing debate over executive power versus independent agency protections.
This saga kicked off with Trump’s bold decision to fire Slaughter and another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, despite the FTC Act’s clear stance that commissioners can only be removed for cause during their seven-year terms.
It’s a direct challenge to a dusty 1935 precedent, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which once slapped down President Franklin D. Roosevelt for a similar move. Now, Trump’s administration is pushing the envelope, and the courts are in a tailspin.
Slaughter’s employment status has been a judicial ping-pong match, with a district court reinstating her, only for her to be fired again, rehired, and then re-fired on September 8, 2025.
An appellate court briefly let her return to work on September 2, 2025, where she jumped back into the fray, posting dissents on social media faster than a progressive can say “systemic inequity.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concise order, made it clear that Slaughter stays out for at least a week while the Supreme Court mulls over her case. This isn’t just a petty personnel spat—it’s a full-on test of whether the president can wield the axe over so-called independent agencies.
The Trump administration, via an emergency petition, argued its case with gusto, and the Supreme Court’s temporary nod suggests they’re at least willing to entertain the idea of unshackling executive authority.
It’s no secret that this Court has previously allowed Trump’s firings at other agencies to stand while lower courts hash out the details. Could this be a sign of bigger changes on the horizon?
At the heart of this dust-up is the Humphrey’s Executor ruling from 1935, a decision that’s long been a thorn in the side of those who believe the president should have more control over executive functions.
Legal scholars are buzzing that today’s conservative-leaning Supreme Court might just be ready to trim back or even overturn this relic, giving Trump and future presidents more room to maneuver.
Solicitor General John Sauer didn’t hold back, arguing that the FTC’s power has ballooned since the 1930s, enforcing a slew of laws like the Sherman Act and filing lawsuits for penalties and injunctions. “Humphrey’s Executor doesn’t mean Article II permits tenure protections for any agency named the ‘Federal Trade Commission,’ no matter how much more executive power the FTC accumulates,” Sauer declared. Well, if that isn’t a polite jab at outdated judicial thinking, what is?
Sauer’s point hits hard—why should an agency with such sweeping authority hide behind tenure protections when it’s effectively wielding executive muscle? For conservatives tired of unelected bureaucrats stonewalling presidential agendas, this argument is music to the ears.
Slaughter, for her part, isn’t going quietly into the night. “I intend to see this case through to the end,” she vowed, showing the kind of grit that even her critics must respect.
She followed up with a pointed critique: “In the week I was back at the FTC, it became even clearer to me that we desperately need the transparency and accountability Congress intended to have at bipartisan independent agencies.” It’s a noble sentiment, but let’s be real—transparency often gets weaponized by those pushing progressive policies to dodge accountability themselves.
While Slaughter’s passion for her role is evident, the broader question remains: Should commissioners at agencies like the FTC be insulated from presidential oversight to this degree? For many on the right, the answer is a resounding no, especially when these agencies can shape economic policy with the stroke of a pen.
This case isn’t just about one commissioner—it’s a potential turning point for how much leash independent agencies get under a president’s watch. If the Supreme Court narrows or overturns Humphrey’s Executor, it could redefine the balance of power in Washington, giving Trump and his successors a stronger hand to steer the ship.
For now, Slaughter remains sidelined as the justices deliberate, but the implications of her case ripple far beyond the FTC’s walls. Conservatives frustrated with overreaching bureaucrats see this as a chance to restore executive accountability, while opponents warn of unchecked presidential power. It’s a debate worth watching, and rest assured, the outcome will set tongues wagging on both sides of the aisle.