The U.S. Supreme Court has intervened in a dispute over presidential authority and the independence of federal agencies, granting a temporary stay that allows President Donald Trump to move forward with the removal of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter. The decision, issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, pauses lower court rulings that had reinstated Slaughter and sets up a decisive legal confrontation that could reshape the structure of administrative government in the United States.
Slaughter, a former acting chair of the FTC and longtime Democratic appointee, had been removed by the president earlier this summer. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled the dismissal unlawful, citing statutes that protect FTC commissioners from being fired except for cause such as neglect of duty or malfeasance. That ruling, grounded in the Supreme Court’s 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, underscored the traditional understanding that certain regulatory agencies must operate independently of political pressures. A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the decision, affirming that the president lacked the unilateral authority to dismiss Slaughter.
The Supreme Court’s stay, however, allows the dismissal to stand temporarily while the justices consider whether to take up the full case. Chief Justice Roberts directed Slaughter’s legal team to file a response by September 15, signaling that the Court intends to weigh the matter quickly. Although procedural in nature, the move is being viewed as a significant indicator that the justices are willing to revisit the limits of executive authority over independent agencies.
The implications extend well beyond the Federal Trade Commission. For nearly a century, Humphrey’s Executor has been a bedrock decision protecting the autonomy of agencies such as the FTC, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. These agencies were deliberately structured to function outside of direct presidential control, ensuring consistency in regulatory oversight regardless of political cycles. If the Supreme Court ultimately weakens or overturns this precedent, it could allow presidents far greater latitude to dismiss commissioners at will, reshaping the balance of power in Washington.
For the legal community, the uncertainty has immediate consequences. Corporate attorneys and in-house counsel must now consider how shifts in agency leadership could affect enforcement priorities, policy direction, and regulatory continuity. If agency heads and commissioners can be more easily replaced, companies could see regulatory strategies change dramatically with each administration, complicating long-term compliance planning. The prospect of increased executive influence also raises concerns about whether enforcement decisions might become more politically charged, undermining the impartiality that independent agencies were designed to provide.
Supporters of expanded presidential authority argue that elected officials should maintain control over the executive branch, including agencies that exercise significant policymaking power. They contend that independence can sometimes insulate regulators from accountability and frustrate policy implementation. Critics, however, warn that eroding these protections would weaken the checks and balances that prevent regulatory agencies from becoming mere extensions of partisan politics.
The Supreme Court has in recent years shown a growing interest in reexamining the scope of agency independence. In previous cases, the justices chipped away at similar protections for other regulatory officials, suggesting that the current Court may be willing to further limit or even overturn Humphrey’s Executor. Such a decision would not only redefine the FTC’s role but also potentially reverberate across dozens of federal bodies that oversee critical aspects of American life, from financial markets to labor law and environmental protection.
For now, Slaughter’s future at the FTC remains uncertain, and the broader legal questions remain unresolved. But the Court’s action on September 8 marks a critical juncture in administrative law, signaling that the independence of federal agencies may no longer be as secure as once believed. The decision has injected a new level of unpredictability into the workings of government, with consequences that could ripple through corporate boardrooms, law firms, and regulatory agencies nationwide.
