The Supreme Court just dropped a bombshell that could shake up the very foundation of how our government operates. The justices have agreed to revisit a dusty 1935 precedent that’s kept independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) somewhat shielded from presidential control.
The Hill reported that President Trump’s push to fire FTC member Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a legal battle that’s now landed before the highest court with a chance to overturn the long-standing Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ruling.
Let’s rewind to March 2025, when Trump attempted to oust Slaughter, a Democrat who’s been on the FTC since 2018.
Federal law says a president needs solid reasons—like inefficiency or neglect—to remove an FTC commissioner, but the administration isn’t even pretending to have cause.
Instead, they’re arguing that these removal protections mess with the separation of powers by tying the president’s hands.
Slaughter didn’t take this lying down; she sued, and by July 2025, a federal district judge in D.C. reinstated her while the case unfolded. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit backed that call, but Chief Justice John Roberts stepped in to let the firing stand temporarily until the Supreme Court could weigh in. Talk about a rollercoaster for one commissioner’s career.
Fast forward to Monday, when the Supreme Court agreed to take up this blockbuster case, scheduling oral arguments for December 2025 with a decision expected by summer 2026.
This isn’t just about Slaughter—it’s about whether a 90-year-old precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, which upheld the FTC’s independence, still holds water. The conservative majority on the court has already hinted they’re skeptical, and that’s got folks on both sides buzzing.
Trump’s team isn’t mincing words, claiming that removal protections for independent agency leaders undermine the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch.
They’re even arguing that courts can’t reinstate fired commissioners like Slaughter, a bold stance that’s raised eyebrows. If they win, it could mean the president gets to hire and fire at will, turning “independent” agencies into anything but.
The court’s three liberal justices aren’t thrilled, with Justice Elena Kagan leading a sharp dissent against the temporary firing. “Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” she wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Well, Justice Kagan, with all due respect, if a precedent is outdated, shouldn’t we at least have the debate?
This isn’t the first time Trump’s flexed his muscle on firings—the court already allowed temporary removals of National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.
Those cases got kicked back to lower courts, though, while Slaughter’s situation takes center stage on the emergency docket. It’s clear the justices see this as the main event to tackle the bigger question of presidential power.
Slaughter’s legal team, while opposing the emergency intervention, did agree with the administration on one thing: the Supreme Court should settle this fast.
They know a ruling here could ripple through countless other disputes over agency independence. And honestly, in a world where government overreach often feels like the norm, a little clarity on who’s really in charge isn’t the worst idea.
Trump’s second term has only intensified his drive to scrap these removal protections, pushing for broader authority over executive branch personnel.
Critics might call it a power grab, but supporters see it as restoring accountability—after all, shouldn’t an elected president have control over the people executing his policies? It’s a fair question, even if it ruffles progressive feathers.
The administration’s argument hinges on the idea that limiting a president’s firing power disrupts the constitutional balance. If Humphrey’s Executor falls, it could reshape how dozens of agencies operate, stripping away the insulation Congress granted them decades ago. That’s either a long-overdue correction or a dangerous overreach, depending on where you stand.
Let’s not forget the court’s recent moves to chip away at this precedent, signaling that its days might be numbered. The conservative majority seems poised to rethink how much independence these agencies really deserve, especially under a president eager to rein them in. It’s a slow burn, but the stakes couldn’t be higher.
For now, Slaughter’s firing stands, though her case could set a new standard for how much power the White House wields over so-called independent bodies.
It’s a messy fight, but one that’s overdue if you believe unelected bureaucrats have too much unchecked sway. The other side, of course, warns of executive overreach, but isn’t accountability to the voter’s choice just as vital?