The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that goes straight to the heart of presidential authority. The question is simple: Can the president fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause?
If the Court rules in favor of the Trump administration, it would overturn nearly a century of precedent insulating members of so-called “independent” agencies from accountability. And based on the justices’ questioning, the Court appears poised to do exactly that.
A ruling affirming the president’s removal power would restore long-eroded executive authority and rein in bureaucrats who have operated for decades with virtually no democratic oversight. For the first time in generations, the people elected to run the country — not unelected agency members — would have the final say over agencies that belong to the Executive Branch.
? BREAKING: Conservative justices on the Supreme Court appear ready to STRIKE DOWN an activist judge and UPHOLD President Trump's firing of left-wing FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter
As it turns out, the head of the Executive Branch is the PRESIDENT!
Trump must win here! pic.twitter.com/7Ajup0pG1e
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 8, 2025
The core of the case revolves around President Trump’s choice to dismiss Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, who is a Democrat, without providing a reason. Her term was scheduled to conclude in 2029:
Slaughter sued immediately to challenge her removal, arguing that it violated protections the Supreme Court enshrined in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that restricted a president’s ability to remove the heads of independent agencies, such as the FTC, without cause.
Slaughter also argued her removal violates the Federal Trade Commission Act, or a 1914 law passed by Congress that shields FTC members from being removed by a president except in circumstances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
[The Supreme Court] asked both parties to come prepared to address two key questions in oral arguments: First, whether the removal protections for FTC members “violates the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor, should be overruled,” and whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, “either through relief at equity or at law.”
A federal judge initially sided with Slaughter in July, ruling that her removal was unlawful and ordering her reinstatement. The Trump administration appealed, and by September the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case. Oral arguments lasted just two and a half hours — and the Court’s conservative majority signaled strong sympathy for the administration’s position.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was especially pointed, arguing that these so-called “independent” agencies have morphed into an improper fourth branch of government — unaccountable to both Congress and the president, despite wielding enormous regulatory power. His critique struck at the core of the modern administrative state.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the lone conservative voice expressing hesitation, worrying that giving the president full removal authority could potentially affect the independence of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. The Fed’s insulation from day-to-day politics is traditionally viewed as a safeguard for long-term monetary stability.
If the Court rules for Trump, the implications will be sweeping. Presidents would gain far greater control over dozens of regulatory bodies — including the Federal Trade Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and others that have operated for decades with little direct accountability to any elected official.
In short, the administrative state may finally face a long-overdue constitutional correction.
