On Monday, December 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court convened to hear arguments in a case that could dramatically alter the landscape of American government, testing the boundaries of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies. At the heart of this legal showdown is Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democrat appointed in 2018 to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), who found herself abruptly removed from her post by the Trump administration earlier this year.
Slaughter’s removal, executed via a curt email from the White House Office of Presidential Personnel, stated her continued service on the FTC is inconsistent with [the Trump] Administration's priorities. Notably, she received no specific reason for her dismissal—an omission that proved pivotal. Slaughter, whose second term was supposed to run until 2029, decided to sue, arguing that her removal violated longstanding protections intended to shield independent agency officials from political whims.
According to NPR, the lower court sided with Slaughter, ruling that her removal was unlawful and ordering her reinstatement. However, the Trump administration quickly appealed, and in September, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order—by a 6 to 3 ideological split—allowing her removal to stand while the legal merits were debated. This temporary ruling set the stage for Monday’s arguments, where the justices were asked to reconsider a 90-year-old precedent that has, until now, insulated independent agencies from direct presidential control.
The precedent in question is the 1935 Supreme Court case known as Humphrey's Executor. In that landmark decision, the Court unanimously held that while the president could remove purely executive officers for any reason, that unfettered power did not extend to agencies like the FTC. The Court reasoned that the FTC’s duties were neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative. As a result, Congress established that commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, not for political disagreements.
Since the Humphrey's Executor ruling, Congress has created numerous independent, multimember agencies—such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Consumer Product Safety Commission—whose members enjoy similar protections. But the Trump administration has challenged this framework, arguing that the original decision was based on a misunderstanding of the FTC’s functions and that, in reality, these agencies wield significant executive power. According to their argument, the president should be able to remove agency heads who conflict with his agenda, a view that has found some traction in recent Supreme Court decisions.
During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court already chipped away at Humphrey's Executor by permitting the president to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a single-director agency. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, distinguished the CFPB from multimember boards like the FTC, noting that the precedent applied only to agencies that do not wield substantial executive power.
In line with this evolving judicial philosophy, on Friday, December 5, 2025, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Trump’s firings of Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox were lawful—citing those agencies’ significant executive powers. This decision further underscored the growing debate over the extent of presidential authority and the fate of independent agencies.
The stakes in this case are enormous. As reported by The New York Times, a decision in Trump’s favor could call into question the constitutionality of job protections for officials in more than two dozen agencies tasked with safeguarding consumers, workers, and the environment. Such a ruling might upend the very structure of the modern administrative state, shifting the balance of power decisively toward the executive branch.
Supporters of independent agencies, like Slaughter herself, argue that these protections are essential. Independence allows the decision-making that is done by these boards and commissions to be on the merits, about the facts, and about protecting the interests of the American people, Slaughter told NPR. That is what Americans deserve from their government. For her and many others, the insulation of agencies like the FTC from direct political pressure is crucial to ensuring fair and impartial oversight of the nation’s economic and regulatory systems.
On the other side, critics of the current system contend that such agencies have never truly been independent and that removal protections are unconstitutional. James M. Burnham, an attorney who served in both Trump administrations, told NPR, I don't think there is such a thing as an independent agency because everything has to be in one of the three branches of government. I don't think they've ever been independent because I think the removal protections have been unconstitutional from the beginning.
Since January 2025, the Trump administration has moved aggressively to remove Democratic members from several independent agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. These actions have prompted a flurry of legal challenges, with the Supreme Court generally allowing the firings to take effect through temporary emergency orders while the broader constitutional questions are considered.
Monday’s case, involving the FTC, marks the first time the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to issue a definitive ruling on the underlying legal questions of these firings. The justices’ decision will not only determine Slaughter’s fate but could also reshape the basic relationship between Congress, the president, and the array of independent agencies that help run the federal government.
The debate is far from over. The Supreme Court is scheduled to continue its deliberations on January 21, 2026, when it will consider another case involving Trump’s attempted firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The outcome of these cases could set new precedents for decades to come, redefining the contours of presidential authority and agency independence.
As the legal battle rages on, Americans across the political spectrum are watching closely, aware that the Court’s ruling could have far-reaching consequences. Will the justices uphold the tradition of agency independence, or will they grant the president sweeping new powers to shape the government in his own image? For now, the future of America’s administrative state hangs in the balance, awaiting the Supreme Court’s next move.
