On Monday, December 8, 2025, the marble halls of the Supreme Court once again became the stage for a high-stakes constitutional debate, as justices weighed arguments in Trump v. Slaughter—a case that could fundamentally reshape the boundaries of presidential power in Washington. At the heart of the dispute is a seemingly technical, but deeply consequential, question: Should the president have the authority to fire members of independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at will, or can Congress protect these officials from being dismissed without cause?
The case arose from President Trump’s bid to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a move that triggered a legal battle over the meaning of a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor. That 1935 decision limited the president’s ability to remove officials from certain agencies, requiring cause such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Trump’s administration, however, has argued these restrictions violate the separation of powers and that the president should have the latitude to dismiss FTC members—and, by extension, many other independent agency officials—for any reason.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, presenting the administration’s case, did not mince words. According to CBS News, Sauer told the justices, “Humphrey’s must be overruled. It has become a decaying husk with bold and particularly dangerous pretensions. It was grievously wrong when it was decided.” Sauer contended that the precedent continues to breed confusion in the lower courts and tempts Congress to construct what he called “a headless fourth branch, insulated from political accountability and democratic control.”
The liberal wing of the court—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—offered a strong defense of the current removal protections. Justice Sotomayor warned that a ruling for Trump could “destroy the structure of government and take away from Congress its ability to protect its idea that the government is better structured with some agencies that are independent.” She cautioned that such a decision could jeopardize the independence of other federal entities, including the U.S. Tax Court and broader civil service protections.
Justice Kagan pressed on the potential consequences, noting that overturning Humphrey’s Executor could open the door to targeting protections for officials across the government. She observed, “Logic has consequences. Once you use a particular kind of argument to justify one thing, you can’t turn your back on that kind of argument if it also justifies another thing in the exact same way.” Kagan warned that expanding presidential control would put “massive uncontrolled, unchecked power in the hands of the president.”
Justice Jackson echoed these concerns, stating that Sauer was “asking us to infer” that the removal protections are unconstitutional based on the Constitution’s structure. “I don’t know why we’d make that inference when the power to create agencies and set everything up lies with Congress,” she said, as reported by CBS News.
On the other side, the court’s conservative justices appeared more sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments. Justice Brett Kavanaugh remarked, “I think broad delegations to unaccountable independent agencies raise enormous constitutional and real-world problems for individual liberty.” Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that much legislative power has migrated into these agencies and suggested that if they are now controlled by the president, “it seems to me all the more imperative to do something about it.”
Attorney Amit Agarwal, representing Slaughter, argued that removal protections have deep roots in American governance, dating back to 1790. “Multi-member commissions with members enjoying some kind of removal protection have been part of our story since 1790. So if petitioners are right, all three branches of government have been wrong from the start,” Agarwal asserted. He emphasized that Congress has a legitimate role in limiting how officials on independent commissions can be removed, and that the FTC’s structure has been affirmed by every president since 1935.
Yet, conservative justices tested the boundaries of Agarwal’s position. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh questioned whether Congress could transform Cabinet-level departments into multi-member commissions insulated from presidential oversight. Agarwal responded that the Constitution would largely prohibit such moves, as Congress cannot limit the president’s authority over officials wielding his “conclusive and preclusive” powers.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed for clarity, saying, “I don’t know that you can make the argument that the logic of [Sauer’s] argument is going to cause these allegedly revolutionary results without being prepared to explain more concretely than you have the limits of your own argument.” Agarwal countered that the FTC Act’s century-old protections were enacted by Congress, signed by a president, and unanimously affirmed by the Supreme Court. “We don’t need an abstract theory to tell us that the FTC Act is OK. It’s the other side that needs to give you a really compelling theory to explain why, in our view, 200-plus years of precedent and history need to be abandoned.”
As NPR reported, the justices spent surprisingly little time discussing what remedy should be available if removal protections are upheld—such as whether courts can reinstate wrongfully fired officials or simply award back pay. Amy Howe, co-founder of SCOTUSblog, noted, “There was basically no discussion of that, which you would expect if the court thought that there were a chance that it might ultimately uphold these removal restrictions.” Justice Kavanaugh voiced concern about this question but implied it might not be relevant if the court sided with the Trump administration.
The stakes extend far beyond the FTC. The outcome of Trump v. Slaughter could affect the structure and independence of dozens of agencies, from the Federal Reserve to the National Labor Relations Board. As NPR pointed out, the case is a contest between giving Congress more power to insulate agencies from political pressure and granting the president sweeping authority over the executive branch. “That’s exactly right,” Howe confirmed, when asked if the case boiled down to that fundamental choice.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have already chipped away at removal protections for agency heads, but Humphrey’s Executor has not yet been overturned. The Trump administration argues that since 1935, the FTC has accumulated broad executive powers—now enforcing over 80 federal laws—and that its commissioners should be directly accountable to the president. Congress, meanwhile, has created more than two dozen independent agencies with removal protections, reflecting a longstanding compromise between legislative and executive branches.
The real-world impact of the court’s decision could be profound. If the justices rule for Trump, presidents could swiftly remove officials from agencies intended to be insulated from partisan sway, potentially ending the era of bipartisan commissions. As Howe observed, “Under the Trump administration’s theory, it seems like that could be in jeopardy as well.”
The Supreme Court’s decision, expected in early 2026, will not just resolve the fate of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter or the FTC. It will determine whether future presidents can unilaterally reshape the leadership of independent agencies—or whether Congress retains the power to design checks on executive authority. For now, the justices’ questions and the sharp divide between the court’s ideological wings suggest that a major shift in the balance of power could be on the horizon.
