On Monday, December 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States convened to hear a case that could upend nearly a century of legal precedent and redefine the boundaries of presidential power. At the center of this legal drama is the firing of Rebecca Slaughter, the last Democratic commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), by President Donald Trump during the early months of his second term. The outcome could reverberate across the federal government, altering the delicate balance Congress sought to strike between the executive branch and the independent agencies that regulate everything from labor relations to consumer protection.
The case challenges the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a ruling that has long shielded the heads of independent agencies from arbitrary dismissal by the president. For decades, this precedent has been a bulwark against direct political interference, requiring that such officials could only be removed for cause—specifically, “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” Yet, as reported by the Associated Press, Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s conservative majority have, over recent years, steadily chipped away at these protections, moving toward a more expansive interpretation of presidential authority.
In March 2025, President Trump dismissed Slaughter without stating any legal cause, instead asserting that her continued service was “inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities.” In an email, Trump declared, “Accordingly, I am removing you from office pursuant to my authority under Article II of the Constitution.” Slaughter immediately challenged the move, arguing that it violated both the letter and the spirit of the FTC Act and the Supreme Court’s own precedent. Lower courts sided with her, reversing her dismissal, but in a surprising turn, the Supreme Court stayed her reinstatement in September—effectively leaving Trump’s action in place while the justices agreed to hear the case in full.
Slaughter’s firing is not an isolated incident. According to reporting from Democracy Docket and the Associated Press, Trump has also removed officials from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Only two have survived his efforts: Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor, and Shira Perlmutter, a copyright official at the Library of Congress. The Supreme Court has signaled that it may treat the Federal Reserve differently due to its unique structure and historical roots, but even that line is being tested. Trump has attempted to fire Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud—a charge she denies—and the court has temporarily blocked her removal, with separate arguments on her case scheduled for January 2026.
At the heart of the legal battle is the so-called “unitary executive theory.” This doctrine, once considered fringe, holds that the president must have unfettered authority to control all personnel within the executive branch. As Justice Antonin Scalia famously wrote in a 1988 dissent, “this does not mean some of the executive power, but all of the executive power.” Proponents of the theory argue that the modern administrative state, with its web of independent agencies, contradicts the Constitution’s original design. The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, has asked the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor, calling it “egregiously wrong” and claiming that restrictions on presidential removal power inflict “a distinct constitutional harm.”
Opponents, however, see things very differently. Slaughter’s lawyers, joined by a chorus of legal historians and scholars, contend that limits on the president’s removal power are not only consistent with the Constitution but essential to the rule of law. Jane Manners, a law professor at Fordham University, noted that she and other historians have filed briefs to provide historical context, arguing that the early years of the Republic featured nuanced debates over executive removal power. Caleb Nelson, a University of Virginia law professor and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote, “Both the text and the history of Article II are far more equivocal than the current Court has been suggesting.” Still, Manners remains skeptical that the justices will be swayed, remarking, “I’m not holding my breath.”
The stakes extend beyond Slaughter’s job. Should the Supreme Court side with the president and overturn Humphrey’s Executor, the ripple effects could reshape the federal government. Agencies like the FTC, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission—designed by Congress to be insulated from direct White House control—could come under far tighter presidential grip. As Democracy Docket points out, this could allow Trump, or any future president, to exert unprecedented influence over the institutions that regulate the economy, the stock market, federal campaign finance, and more.
The Supreme Court’s recent actions suggest a willingness to move in this direction. In 2020, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority that “the President’s removal power is the rule, not the exception,” upholding Trump’s firing of the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau despite job protections similar to those in Humphrey’s. More recently, in the 2024 decision granting Trump immunity from prosecution related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, Roberts included firing power among the president’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers—areas where Congress cannot intervene.
Yet, the court has also shown some caution, especially regarding the Federal Reserve. In a notable carve-out, the justices recognized the central bank as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” This recognition may reflect concerns about the economic uncertainty that could arise if the president were allowed to fire central bank leaders at will. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing earlier this year, suggested that fired employees who win in court may be entitled to back pay but not reinstatement—raising further questions about the practical remedies available to those who challenge their removals.
As the justices heard arguments on Monday, the legal and political worlds watched closely. The Justice Department’s position is clear: the president should be able to remove board members for any reason as he pursues his agenda. Slaughter’s team, meanwhile, insists that the Constitution and American history demand limits on such sweeping authority. The Supreme Court’s ultimate decision—expected sometime in 2026—could either reaffirm the independence of federal agencies or usher in a new era of presidential dominance over the administrative state.
Separate arguments regarding Lisa Cook’s tenure at the Federal Reserve are set for January. The outcome of both cases will determine not only the fate of individual officials but also the future architecture of American governance. As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the boundaries of executive power, and the independence of agencies meant to serve the public interest, hang in the balance.
