Lead: On September 8, 2025, Chief Justice John Roberts granted temporary relief allowing President Donald J. Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the Supreme Court considers the administration’s emergency request. A federal district court in Washington, D.C., had ruled in July that Slaughter’s March removal was unlawful and ordered her reinstatement; the D.C. Circuit declined to pause that order before the high court stepped in. The move continues a series of recent decisions permitting the administration to carry out removals at independent agencies during pending litigation.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court’s temporary order, issued Sept. 8, 2025, lets the White House proceed with Slaughter’s removal while the Court reviews emergency filings.
- Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, first appointed in 2018 and reappointed by President Biden, held a term scheduled to run through 2029.
- A D.C. district court found in July 2025 that the March removal violated the Federal Trade Commission Act and was “unlawful” and “without legal effect.”
- The D.C. Circuit declined to freeze the district court’s reinstatement order before the Supreme Court granted interim relief.
- The administration argues the modern FTC exercises “vast executive authority,” contending that traditional for-cause protections should not bar removal.
- This interim ruling follows the Court’s recent willingness to allow removals at the NLRB, MSPB and CPSC while legal challenges proceed.
- The dispute raises constitutional questions about separation of powers and Congress’s ability to shield multi-member expert commissions from at-will removal.
Background
The Federal Trade Commission is a multi-member independent agency created to regulate unfair business practices and protect consumers. Congress wrote the FTC Act to make commissioners removable only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” a form of for-cause protection designed to insulate expert regulatory decision-making from political swings. That statutory design traces back to the Supreme Court’s 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision, which upheld Congress’s authority to set for-cause removal for certain bipartisan, multi-member commissions.
Over the last several years the Supreme Court has narrowed Humphrey’s Executor, signaling greater presidential authority over executive officers. In 2024–2025 the Court permitted the administration to remove members of other independent agencies while litigation continued, citing those bodies’ exercise of executive power. Those decisions set the immediate context for the Slaughter dispute: whether the FTC’s modern functions mean its commissioners can be removed without the statutory for-cause barriers.
Main Event
In March 2025, the White House Office of Presidential Personnel sent Rebecca Kelly Slaughter an email notifying her of removal from the FTC. Slaughter, who was initially appointed in 2018 and later reappointed, sued the president and agency officials, asserting the removal breached the FTC Act’s statutory protections. The lawsuit sought a declaration that the removal was unlawful and an order restoring her to office.
In July 2025 a federal judge in the District of Columbia agreed with Slaughter, concluding the statutory limitation on removal had been violated and describing the action as “unlawful” and “without legal effect.” The Trump administration appealed, asking the D.C. Circuit to stay the district court’s order; the appeals court declined to freeze the reinstatement while it considered the appeal.
Facing that outcome, the administration filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court asking for interim relief and asked the Court to decide the case’s merits before the D.C. Circuit. On Sept. 8, 2025, Chief Justice Roberts — acting in his role supervising emergency matters from the D.C. Circuit — granted temporary relief allowing the removal to stand while the full Court considers whether to take the case and how to rule.
Analysis & Implications
The Roberts interim order is procedural relief, not a final ruling on statutory or constitutional questions. But it preserves the practical effect of the administration’s removal while litigation proceeds, reducing the immediate institutional access and voting strength of a commissioner aligned with the prior administration. If the Supreme Court ultimately endorses broader removal power, Congress’s ability to insulate independent agencies could be sharply curtailed.
A decision upholding the administration’s position would likely accelerate executive influence across regulatory agencies. Agencies that make economic or safety rules — including the FTC — could see leadership change more easily with a presidential transition, affecting enforcement priorities on antitrust, consumer protection and competition policy.
If the Court reaffirms Humphrey’s Executor and preserves robust for-cause protections, the ruling would bolster statutory independence for multi-member expert commissions and limit presidential control over them. Either outcome would have ripple effects for regulated industries, litigation strategies, and Congress’s legislative leverage over agency design.
Comparison & Data
| Case / Decision | Year | Agency | Immediate Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humphrey’s Executor (Supreme Court) | 1935 | FTC (origins) | Upheld for-cause removal for independent commissions |
| Recent Supreme Court removals (NLRB, MSPB, CPSC) | 2024–2025 | Various | Allowed removals to proceed during litigation |
| Slaughter (district court) | 2025 (July) | FTC | Found removal unlawful; ordered reinstatement |
Context: The 1935 Humphrey’s ruling established a baseline protecting multi-member expert commissions; in 2024–2025 the Court’s recent actions narrowed that baseline. The table summarizes how precedents and immediate court orders differ, illustrating why the Slaughter case is pivotal for independent-agency design.
Reactions & Quotes
Legal practitioners and agency observers framed the Roberts order as another high-stakes moment in the Court’s evolving separation-of-powers jurisprudence. Below are representative excerpts from public filings and court language.
“The district court concluded the removal was ‘unlawful’ and ‘without legal effect.'”
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (July 2025 opinion)
Context: That phrasing appeared in the district court’s judgment restoring Slaughter and formed the basis for the administration’s appeal.
“The modern FTC exercises vast executive authority,”
Trump administration emergency filing
Context: The administration used this argument to contend the FTC should be treated like other agencies where the Court has allowed removals to proceed; the phrase comes from filings asking the Supreme Court for immediate relief.
“For-cause removal protections are central to vocational independence for multi-member expert commissions.”
Scholarly interpretation of Humphrey’s Executor
Context: Legal scholars and past opinions have emphasized that statutory removal limits aim to protect impartial, expert decision-making distinct from ordinary executive functions.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the Supreme Court will ultimately rule that the FTC commissioners are removable at will remains unresolved; the temporary order does not predict final disposition.
- It is not yet confirmed whether additional FTC commissioners will face removal notices or whether Congress will act to codify or alter removal protections.
- The timing of a full Supreme Court decision — and whether the Court will take the case on an expedited merits calendar — remains uncertain.
Bottom Line
The Roberts order is an interim procedural victory for the administration that keeps a contested removal in effect while higher courts weigh broader constitutional questions. The decision does not resolve whether Congress may lawfully limit presidential removal power for multi-member independent commissions; that determination will have long-term consequences for regulatory independence and executive authority.
Readers should watch three developments closely: whether the Supreme Court grants full review on the merits, how the justices characterize the FTC’s functions relative to executive power, and whether Congress responds with statutory changes. Each outcome will reshape the balance between presidential control and agency autonomy across U.S. regulation.