For nearly a century, a core principle of American governance has been that certain powerful federal agencies – those that regulate everything from our financial markets to our telecommunications – must be insulated from direct political control.
Now, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to tear down that wall.
In a case with profound implications for the structure of our government, the White House is arguing that the President has the absolute power to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at will. The outcome of this fight could unravel 90 years of established law and fundamentally reshape the balance of power in Washington.
At a Glance: The President’s Power to Fire
- What’s Happening: The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to rule that the President can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other independent agencies without cause.
- The Case: The administration is fighting to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, the last remaining Democrat on the panel. Lower courts have repeatedly blocked the firing.
- The Precedent at Risk: The case is a direct challenge to a landmark 1935 Supreme Court decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which established the independence of agencies like the FTC.
- The Constitutional Issue: A fundamental Separation of Powers battle over the President’s Article II removal power and the very existence of “independent agencies” within the federal government.
A Fight Over a Single Seat
The immediate conflict centers on one person: FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. She is the only remaining Democrat on the five-member commission, which is tasked with enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws.
President Trump has moved to fire her multiple times this year. Each time, the lower federal courts have blocked him, ruling the firing was unlawful. They have pointed to the federal law that created the FTC, which states that commissioners can only be removed for specific causes, such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office” – not for simple political disagreement.
Now, the administration has taken its fight to the highest court in the land.
The 90-Year-Old Wall: Humphrey’s Executor
The lower courts are basing their rulings on one of the most important Supreme Court decisions you’ve probably never heard of: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
The story behind this 1935 case is strikingly similar to today’s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt tried to fire an FTC commissioner, William Humphrey, because he disagreed with his conservative, pro-business political views.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against FDR.
The justices decided that for agencies that perform “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions, like the FTC, Congress could legally create a wall of separation, insulating their leaders from being fired at the President’s political whim.
“This entire case is a direct assault on a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, Humphrey’s Executor, the decision that created the legal basis for nearly every independent regulatory agency in Washington.”
This ruling gave birth to the modern “independent agency,” a critical and powerful part of what is often called the administrative state.
The Constitutional Argument: The Unitary Executive
The Trump administration’s argument is rooted in a powerful and increasingly influential constitutional theory known as the “unitary executive.”
Proponents of this theory argue that Article II of the Constitution, which grants the President “the executive Power,” means the President must have absolute and total control over the entire executive branch.
From this perspective, any law passed by Congress that limits the President’s ability to fire an official who works within the executive branch – like an FTC commissioner – is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
They argue that these so-called “independent” agencies are a constitutional monstrosity, a “headless fourth branch” of government that is accountable to no one.
The Future of the ‘Fourth Branch’
This case is about far more than one commissioner’s job. It is a battle for the future of the administrative state itself.
The current conservative majority on the Supreme Court has already shown a willingness to chip away at the independence of some agencies. If the Court agrees with the administration and overturns the 90-year-old precedent of Humphrey’s Executor, it would be a constitutional earthquake.
It could give the President the power to fire, at will, the leaders of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and dozens of other powerful agencies that have long operated with a degree of independence from the White House.
The Court’s decision will determine whether that 90-year-old model of governance survives, or if these powerful agencies will be brought under the direct and immediate political control of the President.