The Supreme Court has recently permitted President Donald Trump to dismiss several Democrat-appointed officials from independent agencies, notwithstanding an ongoing case that poses significant implications for the President’s removal power. This case, titled Slaughter v. Trump, features a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) who claims her dismissal was illegal. The situation could eventually lead to a Supreme Court examination, raising crucial questions regarding presidential authority over independent regulatory bodies, particularly in light of the historical precedent set by the nearly century-old decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
Humphrey’s Executor revolves around President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempt to remove an FTC commissioner for political disagreements, which the Supreme Court ruled was an overreach of presidential power. The Court established that presidents could not dismiss FTC commissioners without just cause before their terms ended, as specified by the FTC Act. This ruling was a critical point in defining the limits of executive power. Notably, the FTC’s role has evolved significantly since the 1935 ruling, now possessing extensive powers that allow it to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and impose penalties, making its structure qualitatively different from its past iterations.
Recent assessments suggest that the Supreme Court’s willingness to affirm the President’s authority in removing agency officials might signal a shift away from the protections established by Humphrey’s Executor. A recent 6-3 Supreme Court order allowed Trump to proceed with the removal of members from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. This ruling emphasized “considerable executive power,” suggesting that the Court may be ready to redefine the independence of agencies like the FTC and diminish the scope established in past precedents.
The Slaughter case is particularly critical for determining the future interpretation of Humphrey’s Executor. Initially, Slaughter experienced a temporary win when a federal judge ruled in her favor, arguing that Trump breached constitutional norms. Yet, following an appeal from the Trump administration, an appellate court put the lower court’s decision on hold, indicating the complexity and implications of ongoing legal battles over executive power. Judge Loren AliKhan’s ruling underscored the difficulty of challenging a nearly century-old Supreme Court decision, reaffirming the importance of judicial restraint when it comes to re-evaluating established rulings.
Complicated by political dynamics, Slaughter’s case began when Trump fired her and another Democrat-appointed FTC member without following procedures consistent with Humphrey’s Executor. While Bedoya has resigned, Slaughter remains steadfast, asserting her legal fight is vital for maintaining the integrity and functionality of independent agencies ostensibly shielded from political whims. The lawsuit underscores a broader thematic concern about ensuring transparency and accountability within government structures that were designed to mitigate partisan influence.
As this legal fight progresses, a three-judge panel must navigate the complex interplay of executive power, regulatory independence, and historical precedent. With court filings expected soon, the judges’ decision could have significant ramifications for the relationship between the President and independent regulatory entities, potentially reshaping the landscape of federal oversight for years to come. The outcome of this case may well decide not only Slaughter’s fate but also the broader implications for executive authority and the future of independent institutions within the federal framework.
