On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 in the case of Trump v. Slaughter that the president may remove a leader of a multi-person independent agency for reasons other than those enumerated in statute. The Court upheld President Donald Trump's (R) 2025 dismissal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, ruling that the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 unconstitutionally restricted presidential power by limiting the reasons for which a commissioner could be dismissed.
The ruling overturned the 1935 precedent of Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which had identified the reasons enumerated in the Act – "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" – as the only valid reasons for presidential dismissal of an FTC commissioner. In subsequent jurisprudence, the Humphrey's Executor precedent limited presidential power to remove leaders of multi-member independent agencies to the reasons the U.S. Congress enumerates in statute.
There are approximately 80 federal agencies that demonstrate characteristics of independent federal agencies, which are executive agencies established by statute outside the Executive Office of the President and the 15 executive departments led by cabinet secretaries. Independent agencies have historically defined their independence partly by their protection from presidential removal. A 2012 report from the Administrative Conference of the United States — an independent agency itself — described cause removal protections for agency leaders as meaning "independence from political interference, particularly removal by the President." The Trump v. Slaughter decision rejects this definition.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that "although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President's power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people."
Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and (in part) Clarence Thomas joined in Roberts’ opinion. Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, writing that “the text of the Constitution, along with its history, the longstanding practices of the political branches, and the precedents of this Court, make clear that Congress may limit the causes for which the heads of Commissions like the FTC can be removed by the President.”
Roberts also wrote that "because the FTC's activities fall well within the heartland of executive power, the Court has no occasion today to define the bounds of what such power entails. Not all offices created by Congress necessarily come with executive power… one example the Court has given of such an entity is the Federal Reserve." The same day, the Court announced its 5–4 decision in Trump v. Cook. That opinion, which Roberts also authored, upheld a lower-court injunction against Trump's attempted removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook in August 2025. Roberts wrote in that case that striking down the injunction (which prevents Trump from removing Cook until litigation in the matter is completed) “would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment…” though “the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts.”
What was the case about?
Trump dismissed Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, the two Democratic members of the FTC, on March 18, 2025. The Commission is composed of five members (no more than three from the same political party), nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for a seven-year term. Bedoya was appointed to the Commission by President Joe Biden (D) in 2022, while Slaughter was first appointed by Trump in 2018 and re-appointed by Biden for a second term in 2023. The Federal Trade Commission Act identifies "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" as reasons for which a president may dismiss a commissioner. However, in an email to Bedoya and Slaughter, Trump did not identify any of these reasons for their dismissal, instead writing that their "continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with my Administration's priorities," and that the dismissal was "pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution."
Bedoya and Slaughter sued to challenge their dismissal. On July 18, 2025, a federal district court judge dismissed Bedoya's case (he had resigned as a commissioner in June), but ruled that Slaughter should be reinstated. The federal government appealed, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the order. The government then filed an emergency stay application with the Supreme Court on Sept. 4. On Sept. 22, the Court granted the stay in a 6–3 decision and heard oral arguments on Dec. 8.
What was the Humphrey's Executor precedent?
Humphrey's Executor v. United States was a 1935 case in which the estate of William E. Humphrey, an FTC commissioner, sued to challenge his 1933 dismissal from the Commission by President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D). The 1935 Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Humphrey's estate that the President could only remove a FTC commissioner for one of the reasons enumerated in the Federal Trade Commission Act ("inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office").
The Supreme Court upheld Humphrey's precedent in subsequent jurisprudence, including the 1958 case of Wiener v. United States. The Court has narrowed the scope of Humphrey's Executor in recent years with the cases of Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021). In these cases, the Court found that statutory removal restrictions on presidential removal of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Federal Housing Finance Authority officials were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers principle, without fully striking down Humphrey's precedent.
In Trump v. Slaughter, the majority opinion rejected Humphrey's reasoning, including the 1935 Court's assertion that FTC commissioners exercise "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" powers which do not conflict with executive authority. "If anything more is left of Humphrey's, we overrule it," Roberts wrote, continuing that "Humphrey's has for decades been a result in search of a rationale."