Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case on Presidential Power to Fire Federal Regulators

Introduction to a Pivotal Legal Battle

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, December 8, 2025, heard oral arguments in the highly anticipated case of Trump v. Slaughter, a dispute poised to significantly redefine the scope of presidential power over federal regulatory agencies. The case centers on the President's authority to dismiss officials from independent bodies, specifically challenging the long-standing protections designed to insulate these agencies from political pressure.

Background of the Case: Trump v. Slaughter

The legal battle originated from President Donald Trump's decision in March 2025 to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her position as a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Slaughter, who was appointed to the FTC in 2018 and later to a second term, was dismissed without cause, despite federal statutes limiting a commissioner's removal to instances of 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Slaughter subsequently sued, arguing her removal was unlawful. A federal district court initially ruled in her favor, but the case escalated through the appeals process, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

Challenging a 90-Year-Old Precedent

At the heart of Trump v. Slaughter is a direct challenge to the 1935 landmark ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. United States. This nearly century-old precedent established that the President's power to remove purely executive officers at will does not extend to members of independent agencies like the FTC, whose duties are considered 'quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative' and require insulation from direct presidential control. The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that the Constitution vests all executive power in the President, granting 'illimitable' authority over officers who wield that power. Sauer described the 1935 precedent as a 'decaying husk' during arguments.

Arguments and Potential Ramifications

During the oral arguments, the Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared inclined to expand presidential authority, signaling potential support for President Trump's position. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. referred to Humphrey's Executor as a 'dried husk,' suggesting the contemporary FTC bears little resemblance to the agency that existed in 1935. Attorneys for Slaughter contend that overturning this precedent would destabilize independent regulatory institutions, which are designed to operate with some insulation from direct presidential control to ensure decisions are made on merit and facts. Legal experts, including Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, suggest the Court is 'very likely' to rule that the President needs control over those executing laws. The decision could have profound implications for the structure of the federal government, potentially altering how agencies responsible for consumer protection, market competition, and financial integrity operate.

What's Next

The Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected before the end of its term in June 2026. The ruling will clarify the limits of presidential authority in managing federal institutions and could significantly reshape the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, impacting numerous independent agencies beyond the FTC.