Supreme Court Overturns Independent Agency Removal Protections and Allows Removal of FTC Commissioner
Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332
Today, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the for-cause removal protections for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) unconstitutionally infringe on the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution. This confirms that the President may now remove FTC Commissioners—and the heads of many other “independent agencies”—at will.
Background: In March 2025, the President removed two members of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. By statute, FTC Commissioners serve for seven-year terms and can be removed during their terms only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 15 U.S.C. § 41. The President did not assert any of those statutory reasons. Slaughter and Bedoya sued in federal district court, seeking restoration to office. The court dismissed Bedoya’s claims as moot after he voluntarily resigned from the FTC, but held that Slaughter is entitled to resume her duties. The D.C. Circuit declined to stay the district court’s order. The Supreme Court issued a stay and set the case for briefing and argument on the merits.
Issue: Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the FTC violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.
Court’s Holding: In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett in full and by Justice Thomas in part, the Court held that the statutory for-cause removal restrictions for members of the FTC violate the separation of powers because they impermissibly intrude on the President’s removal authority.
The Court explained that Article II, which grants the President the “executive Power,” generally requires that the President be able to remove subordinate executive officials, because “[t]hen, and only then, can [those officials] remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”
The Court overturned its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the FTC’s for-cause removal restrictions as constitutional on the grounds that the agency exercised quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative power. The Court rejected that conclusion, holding that the FTC “unquestionably exercises executive power.”
The Court then declined to address how far its holding might extend, explaining that “[b]ecause the FTC’s activities fall well within the heartland of executive power,” it did not have “occasion today to define the bounds of what such power entails.” But the Court noted that nothing in its holding addressed the Federal Reserve—the subject of its separate opinion in Trump v. Cook, 25A312, also released today. And the Court left “for another day” the viability of tenure protections for non-Article III courts, “such as the Tax Court and the Court of Federal Claims,” reasoning that those offices may pose a “different set of questions.”
Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, calling for more robust enforcement of doctrines limiting grants of power to the Executive, including the nondelegation doctrine.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. In her view, the Court’s ruling “rewinds the clock nearly 150 years” to invalidate a “common agency structure” that was designed to ensure independence.
Although today’s decision focuses on the FTC, it almost certainly also invalidates laws limiting the President’s authority to remove the leaders of the other so-called “independent agencies” including, for example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).
Read the opinion here.