The Supreme Court seems poised to hand President Donald Trump a major win in a battle over firing a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member without cause, potentially shaking up nearly a century of legal tradition.
The high court’s conservative majority appears ready to back Trump’s removal of former FTC member Rebecca Slaughter.
The decision could weaken a 90-year-old precedent protecting “independent” federal agencies from presidential authority, Fox News reported.
In March, Trump dismissed Slaughter from the FTC, prompting her to sue and challenge the firing based on a 1935 ruling known as Humphrey’s Executor.
That old decision holds that certain agency heads can only be removed for specific reasons like inefficiency or misconduct, not just because a president feels like cleaning house.
Slaughter’s legal team argues that tossing this protection could jeopardize not just the FTC but all multi-member agencies crafted by Congress, putting countless civil servants at risk.
By July, a federal judge sided with Slaughter and ordered her reinstatement, but the Supreme Court hit pause on that ruling in September, letting her dismissal stand for now.
On Monday, the justices, sporting a 6-3 conservative edge, heard nearly three hours of arguments in the case, Trump v. Slaughter.
Most of the conservative justices seemed dubious about Congress having the power to shield agency leaders from a president’s axe.
Some, like Justice Neil Gorsuch, openly question the logic behind the 1935 precedent.
Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out how the FTC’s role has evolved since then, musing whether the original reasoning for Humphrey’s Executor even applies today.
Meanwhile, the liberal justices weren’t shy about their worries, cautioning that gutting this protection could hand presidents unchecked power over federal agencies and upend government structure.
Justice Elena Kagan warned, “Once you’re down this road, it’s a little bit hard to see how you stop,” arguing that Congress designed these agencies to operate free from total presidential control.
She added that stripping away such independence risks creating “massive, uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”
On the other side, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, didn’t hold back.
Sauer called Humphrey’s Executor an “indefensible outlier” and a “decaying husk” of a ruling that’s outlived its usefulness.
Sauer’s argument that shielding agencies from presidential oversight clashes with the Constitution’s framework might resonate with conservatives itching to restore executive authority.
However, a tough pill for those on the Left who want to increase bureaucratic powers.
With a ruling expected by June, and another case involving Trump’s attempted firing of a Federal Reserve governor looming in January, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Overturning this precedent could ripple across agencies like the National Labor Relations Board and beyond, reshaping how power flows in Washington.
READ MORE – Supreme Court to Review Trump’s Order to End Birthright Citizenship
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.