On Monday, September 8, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued an order that has sent shockwaves through the legal and political communities. Without providing an explanation, the Court permitted President Donald Trump to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the last remaining Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), despite longstanding federal laws and Supreme Court precedent designed to shield such independent agencies from direct presidential control. The decision, delivered in an unsigned order by Chief Justice John Roberts, temporarily blocked a lower court's ruling that had reinstated Slaughter after her controversial dismissal earlier this year.
According to Democracy Docket, the Supreme Court's move allows President Trump to disregard the reinstatement of Slaughter while the justices consider whether to formally overturn lower court decisions that found her firing unlawful. The case has become a lightning rod for debate about the independence of federal agencies and the extent of presidential power, with critics warning that the Court's recent pattern of issuing unexplained orders is creating uncertainty throughout the federal judiciary.
Slaughter’s removal is not an isolated event. In March 2025, President Trump fired both Democratic commissioners from the five-member FTC: Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. While both initially challenged their dismissals, Bedoya later dropped out of the case. Slaughter, however, pressed on, briefly returning to the agency after a federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit both ruled in her favor. As the legal battle continues, Slaughter remains listed as a serving commissioner on the FTC’s website, though her actual status is now up in the air.
The firings have put the spotlight on a nearly century-old legal doctrine. The 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor v. United States established that presidents could not remove FTC commissioners except for cause—specifically, for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” This restriction, originally imposed by Congress when it created the FTC in 1914, was intended to protect the agency from political interference and ensure its bipartisan, independent character.
Yet, as The New York Times reports, the current Supreme Court majority has become increasingly skeptical of the notion that any federal agency should be insulated from presidential control. In recent years, the Court has chipped away at protections for independent agencies in a series of high-profile decisions. The order allowing Trump to remove Slaughter, while not a final ruling, signals that the justices may be prepared to further erode the legal barriers that have long separated agencies like the FTC from the direct reach of the White House.
Lawyers representing the Trump administration have argued forcefully that the removal restrictions placed on the president violate Article 2 of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president. In their view, anything that limits the president’s ability to control the executive branch—including the power to fire agency heads at will—undermines the constitutional structure. This argument isn’t new, but it has found a more receptive audience among the current crop of Supreme Court justices.
The stakes are high, not just for the FTC but for the entire landscape of federal governance. The FTC itself is structured to prevent any one party from dominating its decisions: it has five commissioners who serve staggered seven-year terms, with no more than three allowed from the same political party at any given time. Slaughter and Bedoya, both Democrats, were the minority on the commission, with Bedoya having originally been appointed by Trump in 2018 before being reappointed by President Joe Biden in 2024. Their removal leaves the agency without any Democratic representation, a situation critics argue undermines its bipartisan intent.
Slaughter, for her part, has not been silent. In a statement quoted by The Washington Post, she declared, “In the week I was back at the FTC it became even more clear to me that we desperately need the transparency and accountability Congress intended to have at bipartisan independent agencies.” She added that she would “see this case through to the end,” signaling her determination to continue fighting for her position and, more broadly, for the independence of the agency.
The lower courts have thus far sided with Slaughter. In July 2025, a federal judge ruled that her removal was unlawful, citing the 1935 precedent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reached a similar conclusion. But the Supreme Court’s intervention has, at least temporarily, reversed those victories. The justices’ decision to grant relief to the Trump administration without explanation has drawn sharp criticism from some legal observers and lower court judges, who say the practice injects uncertainty into the judicial process and hampers the ability of lower courts to defend the rule of law.
This isn’t the first time in 2025 that President Trump has sought to remove members of independent federal agencies. According to Democracy Docket, the Supreme Court has allowed these removals to proceed in other cases as well, further fueling concerns about the erosion of agency independence. The trend has alarmed those who believe that agencies like the FTC, which are tasked with regulating powerful economic interests and protecting consumers, must remain above the political fray to do their jobs effectively.
At the heart of the debate are competing visions of American government. Some argue that strong presidential control is necessary for accountability and effective governance. Others warn that undermining the independence of agencies like the FTC could open the door to political manipulation and weaken the checks and balances that have traditionally constrained executive power.
For now, the future of the FTC—and the broader principle of agency independence—hangs in the balance. The Supreme Court has not yet issued a final ruling on the merits of the case, and it remains to be seen whether the justices will ultimately overturn the 1935 precedent or reaffirm the protections it established. In the meantime, the agency operates in a state of limbo, with its leadership unsettled and its mission potentially compromised.
As the legal battle continues, all eyes are on the Supreme Court. The outcome will not only determine the fate of Rebecca Slaughter and the FTC, but could reshape the relationship between the presidency and the vast network of independent agencies that touch nearly every aspect of American life.
