The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily allowed President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission while litigation over her dismissal proceeds.
Chief Justice John Roberts granted an emergency stay of a lower court order that had permitted Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to remain on the agency after Trump ordered her ouster on March 18. Roberts gave Slaughter’s legal team until Sept. 15 to respond to an emergency petition from the president’s lawyers asserting that the president has the authority to remove the commissioner.
Trump’s March announcement removed Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, the two Democrats on the five-member commission that enforces antitrust and consumer protection laws. Bedoya initially challenged his firing in court but later dropped his suit. Last week, a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that Trump had fired Slaughter “without cause” and violated the 1914 statute that established the FTC, which restricts removal of commissioners to instances of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Slaughter has been seeking reinstatement since her removal. Her legal team had been allowed by the lower court to remain at the agency while the challenge proceeded, a ruling Roberts paused with his temporary stay. The Supreme Court’s action preserves the status quo pending further briefing and possible full-court review.
The question presented in the emergency filing goes to a long-standing legal precedent. In 1935, the Supreme Court in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States held unanimously that presidents may not dismiss FTC commissioners for policy disagreements alone, limiting the president’s ability to remove officials of certain independent agencies. The Trump legal team has argued that Humphrey’s Executor unduly restricts Article II presidential powers.
The high court has recently shown a willingness to revisit limits on removal protections for independent agencies. In July, the Supreme Court paved the way for the president to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, signaling judicial skepticism about longstanding constraints on presidential control of such entities.
Roberts did not provide an explanation for his emergency decision and there were no noted dissents. The justices will take up a new term beginning Oct. 6, and the issue of removal authority is likely to be a focal point in litigation that could reach the full Supreme Court.
The FTC is composed of five Senate-confirmed commissioners who serve staggered seven-year terms; by statute, no more than three commissioners may belong to the same political party. The D.C. Circuit’s recent split decision and the Supreme Court’s temporary stay place the commission’s partisan composition and enforcement agenda in legal limbo while courts consider whether statutory protections for commissioners can be overridden by the president.
The immediate procedural question is narrow: whether the stay should remain while the appeal is briefed and whether the Supreme Court will take the case to resolve tensions between Humphrey’s Executor and the president’s asserted Article II removal powers. The deadline Roberts set for Slaughter’s response establishes the next formal step in a dispute that could reshape the balance between the White House and independent regulatory bodies.