At issue is whether President Trump can fire Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, whom Trump appointed in 2018, during his first term, to fill a Democratic seat on the Federal Trade Commission. Elizabeth Gillis/NPRThe Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 8, 2025, in a case that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power between the president and independent federal agencies. At the center of Trump v. Slaughter is President Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, a Democrat whose position was protected by "for cause" removal restrictions. Conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the administration's arguments during the hearing, signaling a potential victory that could affect more than two dozen across the executive branch.
What Is the Unitary Executive Theory?
The Trump administration is invoking the "unitary executive" theory, a constitutional interpretation that grants the president exclusive control over all executive branch functions. Under this doctrine, any law that restricts the president's ability to remove executive officers violates the Constitution's separation of powers. The theory has gained traction among conservative legal scholars over the past several decades, though critics argue it concentrates dangerous levels of power in the executive.
Constitutional Origins and Conservative Legal Philosophy
Proponents point to Article II of the Constitution, which vests "executive power" in the president, as evidence that all executive functions must ultimately answer to presidential authority. This interpretation challenges Congress's ability to create independent agencies insulated from direct presidential control. The current case represents the most aggressive test of this theory since the New Deal era, potentially overturning nearly a century of established governing independent agencies.
The FTC Firing Case Explained
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter's Dismissal
President Trump dismissed Commissioner Slaughter in early 2025, despite statutory protections that allow removal only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." The administration argued that these restrictions unconstitutionally limit presidential authority over executive branch officials. Slaughter challenged her removal in federal court, setting up the constitutional showdown now before the Supreme Court.
What Humphrey's Executor Established in 1935
The 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States upheld Congress's power to create independent agencies with commissioners protected from at-will presidential removal. That ruling distinguished between purely executive officers, whom the president can fire freely, and quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officials serving in independent agencies. The Trump administration now asks the Court to overturn or significantly narrow this 90-year-old precedent, arguing that the FTC has accumulated extensive executive powers since then, including enforcement of over 80 federal laws regulating everything from meat products to credit card markets.
Which Federal Agencies Could Be Affected?
Independent Regulatory Commissions at Risk
A ruling in favor of the president could extend beyond the FTC to encompass numerous independent agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Communications Commission. These agencies collectively oversee trillions of dollars in economic activity and enforce regulations affecting virtually every American business and consumer. Industry leaders have expressed concern about the potential for increased political interference in what have traditionally been technocratic, non-partisan regulatory decisions.
Implications for the Federal Reserve
Perhaps most significantly, legal experts warn that the decision could eventually threaten the independence of the Federal Reserve, America's central bank. While the Fed was not explicitly mentioned in oral arguments, the legal reasoning supporting presidential removal power could logically extend to Fed governors. Such a development would alarm financial markets, which depend on the Fed's perceived independence from political pressure when setting monetary policy and interest rates.
How the Supreme Court Signaled Its Direction
Conservative Justices' Oral Arguments Analysis
During the December 8 hearing, the Court's six conservative justices dominated questioning, with several expressing skepticism about Congress's authority to limit presidential removal power. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh focused on how executive agencies have expanded their regulatory reach since 1935, suggesting the Humphreys Executor framework may no longer fit modern administrative governance. Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether any meaningful distinction exists between "executive" and "quasi-legislative" functions in today's administrative state.
Chief Justice Roberts' Previous Rulings
Chief Justice Roberts has previously shown a willingness to constrain administrative agencies, most notably in last year's decisions limiting regulatory authority. His questions during oral arguments suggested he views independent agency commissioners as exercising core executive functions that should remain under presidential control. Legal analysts predict the Court will issue a ruling by June 2026 that significantly expands presidential removal authority, though the exact scope remains uncertain.
Business and Economic Implications
The case has generated intense interest from the business community, with competing concerns about regulatory predictability versus political accountability. Some corporations welcome the prospect of more presidential influence over agency decisions, hoping for a lighter regulatory touch under friendly administrations. However, others worry that agencies subject to frequent leadership changes could create market uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement. Similar expansions of executive power have been attempted during previous administrations, though none succeeded in fundamentally altering the independent agency structure as dramatically as this case threatens to do.
The ruling could also affect how agencies handle long-term regulatory challenges requiring consistent policy approaches across multiple presidential terms. Climate regulations, antitrust enforcement, and financial stability oversight all depend on institutional continuity that might be disrupted by increased political turnover at agency leadership levels.
Read More:
0 Comments