Another courtroom drama has unfolded with the reinstatement of a federal official canned by President Trump.
The Hill reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday to bring back Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, who was unceremoniously shown the door earlier this year.
Let’s rewind to 2018, when Slaughter was appointed to a Democratic seat on the FTC, a position typically held for about six years.
Her tenure took a sharp turn in March when President Trump decided to remove her without providing a clear reason. It’s the kind of move that raises eyebrows, especially when the government insists the president can dismiss whoever he pleases.
Fast forward to July, and U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan stepped in with a ruling that called Slaughter’s removal flat-out illegal.
Her opinion didn’t mince words, stating, “Defendants repeatedly want the FTC to be something it is not: a subservient agency subject to the whims of the President.” Well, Judge, that’s a spicy take, but isn’t there something to be said for executive authority in a system drowning in bureaucratic red tape?
AliKhan went further, adding, “Undermining that autonomy by allowing the President to remove Commissioners at will inflicts an exceptionally unique harm.” Fair point on paper, but let’s not pretend the FTC is some sacred temple immune to political realities—every agency answers to someone, eventually.
Then came Tuesday’s appellate ruling, reinforcing AliKhan’s stance with a 2-1 smackdown of the removal. The majority opinion declared, “The government is not likely to succeed on appeal because any ruling in its favor would defy binding Supreme Court precedent.”
That’s a bold claim, but one wonders if the court is cherry-picking precedent to curb a president’s rightful oversight.
The appeals court doubled down, stating, “Bucking such precedent is not within this court’s job description.” Touché, but shouldn’t the judiciary at least wrestle with whether decades-old rulings fit today’s hyper-partisan mess? It’s not defiance to question if the rules still make sense.
Meanwhile, the White House isn’t backing down, with spokesperson Kush Desai telling The Hill, “President Trump acted lawfully when he removed Rebecca Slaughter from the FTC.”
Desai’s got a point—recent Supreme Court decisions have leaned toward bolstering presidential power over executive agencies. Why ignore those rulings while clinging to older ones?
Desai added, “We look forward to being vindicated for a third time—and hopefully the lower courts will cease their defiance of Supreme Court orders.” That’s a confident jab, but if the courts keep batting this down, it’s less defiance and more a signal that the legal landscape is a muddled swamp.
Slaughter’s journey doesn’t end with her ousting or these rulings—former President Biden even nominated her for a second term in 2023.
It’s a nod to her staying power, or perhaps just political chess in a town obsessed with board games. Either way, her reinstatement now throws a wrench into the narrative of unchecked executive control.
From a conservative angle, this saga reeks of judicial overreach trying to handcuff a president’s ability to steer the ship.
Trump’s move may have been abrupt, but isn’t it his prerogative to shape agencies that align with his vision for America? We’re not talking about a monarchy here, but a duly elected leader making tough calls.
Yet, there’s a flip side worth a nod—Slaughter’s abrupt dismissal without cause does smell of political vendetta, which even the staunchest MAGA supporter might squint at. If we’re all about fairness, shouldn’t there be at least a transparent reason for such a high-profile axing? It’s not woke to ask for accountability on both sides.
The broader question looms: should the FTC be an untouchable fiefdom, or does the president deserve leeway to clean house? This ruling tilts toward the former, but in an era where progressive agendas often hide behind “independence,” conservatives might rightfully worry about unaccountable bureaucrats.