In a major setback for President Donald Trump, a Democrat-aligned federal judge ruled that the termination of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter was illegal.
The activist judge cited a decades-old Supreme Court ruling that placed clear limits on the president’s power to remove members of the FTC.
The ruling highlights the ongoing legal challenges to Trump’s authority and serves as a reminder of the legal constraints placed on the executive branch.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan, a Joe Biden appointee, cited the 1935 Humphreys Executor ruling, which upheld the legal limitations Congress placed on removing members of the FTC.
The Supreme Court had ruled that presidents could only remove FTC commissioners for reasons of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Trump’s firing of Slaughter earlier this year did not meet these criteria, the judge found, as the White House had stated that Slaughter’s removal was based on her failure to align with the Trump administration’s priorities, not for inefficiency or misconduct.
Judge AliKhan made it clear in her ruling that the legal question here, whether the Supreme Court’s decision on FTC removal protections applies to Slaughter’s case, was not up for debate.
She emphasized that the Humphreys Executor decision is a binding precedent, one that cannot be overruled by a district court.
“In arguing for a different result, Defendants ask this court to ignore the letter of Humphrey’s Executor and embrace the critiques from its detractors,” AliKhan wrote.
“Because ‘it is [the Supreme] Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents,’ the court cannot, and will not, fulfill that request.”
Trump’s legal team had argued that the president’s inherent powers should allow him to bypass congressional limits on removing commissioners, but the judge rejected this argument.
The ruling struck a significant blow to the Trump administration’s assertion of expansive presidential power and reinforced the legal protections designed to maintain the independence of federal agencies like the FTC.
Despite the ruling, the judge determined that Slaughter’s firing had no immediate effect.
She will remain a commissioner at the FTC until her term expires on September 25, 2029, unless she is removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, as stipulated by the law.
This decision effectively blocks Trump’s attempt to unilaterally remove her from office.
In a statement on Thursday, the lawyers representing Slaughter, who are from the Protect Democracy Project, celebrated the decision, claiming that it was a crucial victory for the rule of law.
“The President claims he has inherent and absolute power to bypass laws Congress put in place to make sure that traditional independent agencies protect the rights and interests of the American people,” they wrote on Facebook.
“The court correctly rejected that claim.”
The Department of Justice has already filed an appeal, seeking to stay the order pending the outcome of the legal process.
Government attorneys argue that Judge AliKhan’s ruling is an “extraordinary intrusion” into the president’s constitutional authority to make personnel decisions.
This legal fight follows the firing of another FTC commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, who, along with Slaughter, filed suit against Trump in March, challenging their dismissals.
Bedoya has since resigned from his position, which the court ruled made his claims “moot.”
While Judge AliKhan’s decision is a blow to Trump’s broader executive authority, it also draws attention to the ongoing struggle over the balance of power between the executive branch and the independent agencies that are meant to operate without undue political interference.
The Humphreys Executor ruling has long been a cornerstone in maintaining the independence of regulatory agencies like the FTC, and this ruling reaffirms that principle.
The Trump administration had attempted to argue that more recent Supreme Court rulings on executive power justified bypassing these long-standing limits, but AliKhan held firm in applying Humphreys Executor to the case at hand.
The ruling sets a strong precedent for the future, signaling that, at least in this case, the judiciary will protect Democrat allies within regulatory bodies.
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.