With a brief, temporary order, the Supreme Court today allowed President Trump to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. This single personnel decision, however, is merely the opening shot in what is poised to become one of the most significant constitutional battles in modern American history. At stake is not just one person’s job, but the very structure of the federal government and the power of the President to control it.
Why Is Firing One Commissioner a National Issue?
Shortly after taking office, President Trump fired two Democrat-appointed FTC commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. He did so without citing any specific wrongdoing, claiming broad constitutional authority over the executive branch. This action flew in the face of the law that created the FTC, which explicitly states that its commissioners serve fixed seven-year terms.
The FTC Act says commissioners should only be fired from their seven-year tenures for “cause, such as malfeasance.”
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 order along ideological lines, has now allowed Slaughter’s termination to remain in effect while it prepares to hear the full case in December. This initial move is being widely interpreted as a signal that the Court’s conservative majority is ready to fundamentally reconsider the President’s power to fire officials within the so-called “independent” agencies.
The Ghost of 1935: Humphrey’s Executor
This entire conflict revolves around a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In that landmark 1935 case, a unanimous court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not have the power to fire an FTC commissioner for purely political reasons.
The Court reasoned that agencies like the FTC, which perform quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, must have a degree of independence from the White House to operate impartially. This decision became the legal foundation for the entire administrative state – the alphabet soup of agencies from the Federal Reserve to the SEC – that are designed to be run by experts, not political loyalists serving at the pleasure of the President.
The Rise of the Unitary Executive Theory
President Trump’s legal challenge is a direct assault on that 90-year-old precedent. It is the ultimate test of a long-held conservative legal theory known as the “unitary executive.” Proponents of this theory argue that Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power in the President alone.
From this viewpoint, any law passed by Congress that limits the President’s ability to hire and fire any official within the executive branch is an unconstitutional infringement on presidential authority. The current case argues that the “for cause” protection in the FTC Act is one such unconstitutional limit.
If the Supreme Court agrees, it will not just be a victory for the President – it will be a constitutional revolution. Overturning Humphrey’s Executor would effectively dismantle the concept of independent agencies, transforming them into political arms of the White House. The President would have the undisputed power to fire the Chair of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other commissioner for any reason, or no reason at all. The case will be argued in December, but the future of American governance is already on the docket.