With a brief, temporary order, Chief Justice John Roberts has paused a lower court’s ruling, allowing President Trump to, for now, keep a fired Federal Trade Commissioner off the government payroll. This seemingly minor procedural move is the opening salvo in what could be one of the most significant constitutional battles of our time.
The case of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter is more than a dispute over one person’s job. It is a direct and potentially final assault on the 90-year-old legal precedent that created the “Fourth Branch” of American government – the independent agencies that regulate vast swaths of our economy. This is a showdown over the very nature and limits of presidential power.
A 90-Year-Old Precedent on Trial
To understand the stakes, we must go back to 1935 and the landmark Supreme Court case Humphrey's Executor v. United States. In that case, the Court ruled that President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not have the power to fire a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for purely political reasons.
The Court reasoned that because the FTC exercises quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, its independence from direct presidential control is essential. This decision created the constitutional foundation for all modern independent agencies, from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It established that Congress could create agencies and protect their leaders with “for cause” removal provisions, placing a crucial check on the president’s power.
The Unitary Executive’s Long Campaign
This precedent has been under a long and sustained attack by proponents of the unitary executive theory. This is the constitutional doctrine that the President, under Article II, must have absolute control over the entire executive branch, including the power to fire any official at will.
The modern, conservative-leaning Supreme Court has shown a growing sympathy for this view. In the 2020 case Seila Law v. CFPB, the Court ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, led by a single director with “for cause” protection, was unconstitutional. That decision significantly weakened the Humphrey’s Executor precedent and signaled a new era of skepticism toward the independence of the “Fourth Branch.”
A Republic of Independent Agencies at Stake
This is not an abstract legal debate. The outcome of the Slaughter case could upend the entire structure of the American administrative state. Dozens of agencies that Americans rely on to ensure fair markets, safe products, and a stable economy are led by officials with similar “for cause” protections.
The independence of these agencies was designed to ensure that their decisions are based on evidence and expertise, not on the political whims of the White House. A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the President in this case could erase that independence overnight. It would make the leaders of all these agencies directly subservient to the President, transforming them from impartial regulators into political instruments of the administration.
Chief Justice Roberts’s administrative stay is just the quiet beginning of a constitutional earthquake. The case of Rebecca Slaughter has become the focal point for a century-long battle over the nature of presidential power. The Supreme Court must now decide whether the “Fourth Branch” of government can continue to exist, or if it will be fully subordinated to the power of a unitary executive. The outcome will redefine the balance of power in Washington for generations to come.