Ask Onix
Supreme Court weighs presidential authority over federal agencies
The U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled potential support for the Trump administration's bid to expand presidential control over independent federal agencies during oral arguments on Monday. The case, Trump v. Slaughter, centers on whether a president can fire a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner without cause, challenging a nearly century-old precedent.
Background of the case
The dispute stems from former President Donald Trump's 2024 firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner. Federal law restricts the removal of such officials to cases of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Slaughter, initially appointed by Trump in 2018 and later reappointed by President Joe Biden, sued after her dismissal, arguing it violated the FTC's statutory independence.
The FTC, established in 1914 to combat deceptive business practices, operates under a bipartisan structure: no more than three of its five commissioners can belong to the same political party. Similar protections exist for other independent agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board.
Legal precedent under scrutiny
The case revisits the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling, in which the Supreme Court upheld the independence of agencies like the FTC, classifying them as "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" rather than purely executive. The decision barred presidents from firing commissioners without cause, a principle that has shaped federal agency operations for decades.
During Monday's arguments, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, called the Humphrey's Executor precedent an "indefensible outlier" and urged the court to overturn it. "Broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise constitutional and practical concerns for individual liberty," Sauer argued.
Justices' divided perspectives
The court's four conservative justices appeared skeptical of Slaughter's position, questioning the logic of limiting presidential authority. Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed Sauer's concerns, framing independent agencies as a threat to accountability. "Unchecked delegations of power create real-world problems," he said.
The three liberal justices, however, warned against dismantling long-standing precedent. Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that overturning Humphrey's Executor would "destroy the structure of government" and strip Congress of its ability to design independent agencies. Justice Elena Kagan raised broader implications, asking, "Where does this lead?" She noted that civil service protections, in place for over a century, could be undermined if the court sided with Trump.
"Multi-member commissions with removal protections have been part of our system since 1790. If the petitioners are right, all three branches of government have been wrong from the start."
Amit Agarwal, attorney for Rebecca Slaughter
Potential consequences and next steps
The Supreme Court's decision, expected in the coming months, could reshape the balance of power between the White House and federal agencies. Analysts suggest the court's September ruling-an emergency order upholding Slaughter's firing pending full review-may signal its eventual stance. The case also follows a separate but related dispute over Trump's removal of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, which the court will address later.
Slaughter's legal team had previously secured a lower-court victory, with a judge ruling her firing illegal. The Trump administration appealed that decision, bringing the case before the Supreme Court.
