Welcome to the Monday, March 31, Brew.
By: Briana Ryan
Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:
- A look at past court decisions in the context of President Donald Trump’s firing of two Democratic Federal Trade Commissioners
- Kansas voters will decide on citizenship voting requirement amendment in 2026—voters in eight states approved similar measures in 2024
- Republican Party committees lead in cumulative fundraising through Feb. 28
A look at past court decisions in the context of President Donald Trump’s firing of two Democratic Federal Trade Commissioners
On March 18, President Donald Trump (R) fired Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya (D) and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter (D). According to The New York Times’ David McCabe and Cecilia Kang, at least one of the letters notifying the commissioners of their termination stated, “Your continued service on the F.T.C. is inconsistent with my administration’s priorities.”
In response to their terminations, Bedoya and Slaughter filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, stating that the “Plaintiffs will not and do not accept this unlawful action: Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate their right to serve the remainder of their respective terms, defend the integrity of the Commission, and to continue their work for the American people.”
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson (R) said that Trump “is the head of the executive branch and is vested with all of the executive power of our government. I have no doubts about his constitutional authority to remove commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability for our government.”
The firings came one month after Trump signed Executive Order 14215, which expanded presidential oversight over federal agencies. However, a president’s appointment and removal power have been the topic of previous U.S. Supreme Court cases.
Whether a president has the legal power to fire FTC commissioners was central to the 1935 U.S. Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) fired FTC Commissioner William E. Humphrey. After Humphrey died, his estate challenged the legality of the firing in court. The court ruled Roosevelt had acted improperly and the president could only remove FTC members for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” the only causes for dismissal explicitly given in the statute establishing the FTC.
The ruling set a precedent that the presidents could not remove officers from independent federal agencies for reasons other than those listed in the relevant statutes. The court noted that administrative agencies were meant to be independent and nonpartisan, so the President generally could not remove such officers for purely political reasons.
On whether the Trump administration would seek to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, “The goal was to let these individuals go. If we have to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court, we certainly will.”
In the 2020 case of Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a statutory prohibition against at-will presidential firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers principle. In the 2021 case of Collins v. Yellen, the court likewise ruled against similar statutory restrictions on the president’s removal authority of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) director.
While these cases have expanded presidential removal authority, they did not strike down the ruling in Humphrey’s Executor.
Congress established the FTC in 1914 with a statutory mandate to “prevent unfair methods of competition in commerce.” The FTC is one of 132 agencies in the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) list of independent agencies, a term used to describe an executive agency that operates with some degree of autonomy from the executive branch. The FTC has operated with a certain degree of autonomy within the executive branch.
The president, with the advice of the U.S. Senate, appoints all members of the commission. According to the statute, “not more than three of the Commissioners shall be members of the same political party.” Two Republicans currently serve on the five-seat FTC board, and a third Republican, Mark Meador, is awaiting Senate confirmation.
The FTC is generally able to bring or dismiss cases with two commissioners. In at least one pending case, the two Republican members, Melissa Holyoak and Ferguson, have previously recused themselves. Reuters’ Jody Godoy wrote, “The recusals raise uncertainty about how the FTC will manage the case going forward.”
Trump has previously sought in this term to fire members of other independent executive agencies: National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox, Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris, and Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chair Ellen Weintraub. All three of these officials have argued that their firings were illegal, with lower court federal judges ruling in favor of at least Wilcox and Harris in lawsuits brought by them. The Trump Administration appealed these decisions.
Trump has also fired the heads of independent agencies run by a single person rather than a multi-member board. For example, Trump removed Hampton Dellinger as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Dellinger sued and was granted a preliminary injunction. An appeals court removed the injunction on March 5, and Dellinger dropped his lawsuit on March 6.
For more information about the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), click here.
Kansas voters will decide on citizenship voting requirement amendment in 2026—voters in eight states approved similar measures in 2024
On Nov. 3, 2026, Kansas voters will decide on a constitutional amendment allowing only U.S. citizens to vote. Voters in eight states approved similar measures in 2024, and South Dakota voters will also be deciding on such an amendment in 2026.
In 1996, the U.S. Congress passed a law prohibiting noncitizens from voting in federal elections, including elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, and president. This law does not apply to elections for state and local offices. The District of Columbia and certain California, Maryland, and Vermont municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in some or all local elections. The map below shows which U.S. states allow or prohibit noncitizen voting for state or local elections.
On Feb. 5, the Kansas House of Representatives approved House Concurrent Resolution 5004 (HCR 5004)—the bill to put the amendment on the ballot—90-28. On March 25, the Kansas Senate approved the bill 37-3.
Americans for Citizen Voting’s Becky Arps submitted testimony supporting HCR 5004, saying, “The Kansas Constitution protects the rights of every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of eighteen years and who resides in the voting area. It does not prohibit a municipality from allowing a non-citizen to vote legally. It is granting the right to vote to citizens of the United States but not reserving the right to vote to only citizens of the United States.”
Loud Light Civic Action’s Davis Hammet submitted testimony opposing HCR 5004, saying, “This amendment does nothing to strengthen our Constitution, it appears to do nothing at all legally, yet it will cause confusion, inflame tensions, and distract from important conversations.”
This amendment is the second that Kansas voters will decide in 2026. On Aug. 4, 2026, voters will decide on an amendment to make the Kansas Supreme Court an elected office and to abolish the court’s nominating commission. Between 1985 and 2022, 21 measures appeared on the Kansas ballot. Voters approved 15 measures and defeated six.
For a closer look at the constitutional amendment that Kansas voters will decide in 2026, click here.
Republican Party committees lead in cumulative fundraising through Feb. 28
According to the most recent Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports, the three main Democratic Party fundraising committees raised a cumulative $57 million and spent $58 million in the 2026 election cycle. The three committees associated with the Republican Party raised $67 million and spent $43 million.
The three Democratic committees are the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). The three Republican committees are the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).
As of Feb. 28, the DCCC held a lead over the NRCC in cumulative receipts, disbursements, and cash on hand. The RNC led the DNC in cash on hand and receipts, while the DNC led in disbursements. The NRSC led the DSCC in receipts and disbursements, while the DSCC led in cash on hand.
Democratic committees have raised less at this point in the 2026 election cycle than in the 2022 cycle but more than in the 2024 cycle. On the Republican side, the three committees have raised more at this point in the 2026 election cycle than in the 2022 cycle but more than the 2024 cycle.
For more information about party committee fundraising, click here.