Supreme Court Allows Trump To Remove Democratic FTC Member For Now
President Donald Trump scored a major constitutional victory this week when the U.S. Supreme Court approved his removal of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The Trump administration had filed an emergency appeal after lower courts repeatedly blocked the president’s decision, citing outdated precedent from nearly a century ago. In a decisive move, the high court granted Trump’s request, halting Slaughter’s reinstatement and agreeing to hear the broader constitutional question of whether presidents may dismiss officials at so-called “independent” agencies.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the FTC’s powers have expanded dramatically since the 1930s and now represent substantial executive authority.
“The lower courts have once again ordered the reinstatement of a high-level officer wielding substantial executive authority whom the president has determined should not exercise any executive power, let alone significant rulemaking and enforcement powers,” Sauer wrote in the government’s petition.
Trump removed Slaughter and another Democratic commissioner back in March, only to face a federal district court order in July forcing her reinstatement. Last week, an appeals court doubled down, insisting the president lacked authority to act, citing Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. (1935) — a Depression-era case liberals have long relied on to insulate bureaucrats from presidential accountability.
The Supreme Court’s decision signals a potential landmark ruling that could finally rein in the administrative state. If the justices side with Trump on the merits, it would restore long-lost constitutional clarity: that executive power resides in the president, not unelected regulators.
Justices Warn Lower Courts: Stop Defying Precedent
The rebuke comes amid growing frustration on the Court’s conservative wing over activist judges openly defying precedent in cases involving President Trump’s policies.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, recently warned that “lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.” Gorsuch blasted one district judge for ignoring a prior Supreme Court order after Trump canceled nearly $800 million in federal research grants, noting this was “the third time in a matter of weeks” the high court had to intervene.
Justice Samuel Alito likewise called out an “act of judicial hubris” earlier this year when another judge attempted to block Trump’s reforms.
Meanwhile, liberal justices have responded with shrill dissents. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared the Court’s handling of Trump cases to “Calvinball,” while Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused her colleagues of “rewarding lawlessness” for siding with the administration on deportation policy.
The Bigger Picture: Ending the Rule of Rogue Judges
The Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration in a string of emergency docket cases this year on immigration, federal spending, and agency leadership. In another significant ruling, the justices curtailed the ability of district judges to issue sweeping nationwide injunctions — a tool frequently abused to block Trump’s agenda.
The stakes are high. Beyond Slaughter’s firing, the case could determine whether presidents have the rightful authority to remove unaccountable bureaucrats in powerful agencies — a question at the heart of restoring constitutional checks and balances.
For now, President Trump has secured another victory against an entrenched bureaucracy and activist judiciary determined to block his agenda at all costs.