On Sept. 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed President Donald J. Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while litigation proceeds, issuing an order from Chief Justice John Roberts that stayed a lower-court decision reinstating her. The move pauses a July federal judge’s ruling and a D.C. Circuit decision that had relied on the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor, which limits presidential removal of independent-agency officials. Slaughter — one of two Democratic commissioners dismissed in March — said she will pursue the case to a final resolution even as the court permits her removal during the appeal. The order heightens a broader fight over the scope of Article II authority and the future independence of regulatory bodies.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court on Sept. 8, 2025 issued an order, signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, temporarily blocking a lower-court reinstatement of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter.
- Slaughter and fellow Democratic commissioner Alvaro Bedoya were removed by President Trump in March 2025; Bedoya later withdrew his challenge while Slaughter continued litigation.
- The dispute turns on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which upheld statutory restrictions allowing removal of FTC commissioners only for cause such as “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”
- A federal district judge ruled for Slaughter in July 2025; the D.C. Circuit reached a similar conclusion before the Supreme Court intervened.
- The Trump administration argues removal limits violate Article II and impede presidential control of the executive branch; the court’s order suggests willingness to reconsider that framework.
- The FTC is a five-member commission with seven-year terms and a partisan cap of no more than three commissioners from the same party; the agency’s website still lists Slaughter as a commissioner while the case continues.
- The order is an interim step and does not constitute a final ruling on whether the president may broadly remove independent-agency officials without cause.
Background
The Federal Trade Commission was established by the FTC Act of 1914 as an independent regulatory body to police unfair competition and consumer protection. Congress insulated commissioners from direct presidential control by limiting removal to specified grounds, a design intended to promote bipartisan oversight and protect agencies from short-term political pressure. In Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court upheld that statutory design and distinguished truly executive officers from officials performing quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions.
Over recent decades the Court has sometimes narrowed insulation for independent agencies, creating fresh legal debate about how much control the president may exercise. The Trump administration’s March 2025 removal of the two Democratic FTC commissioners triggered litigation that pressed these long-standing tensions back to the Supreme Court. Lower courts relied on Humphrey’s Executor to reinstate Commissioner Slaughter, but the administration sought emergency relief at the high court to allow immediate removal.
Main Event
In March 2025 President Trump removed Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya from the five-member FTC. Bedoya subsequently dropped his suit; Slaughter pressed on, and a federal district judge ruled in her favor in July 2025, citing Humphrey’s Executor and concluding the statutory for-cause protection applied. The D.C. Circuit affirmed that judgment, further supporting the view that Congress’ removal limits remain valid for the FTC.
On Sept. 8, 2025 Chief Justice Roberts issued an order staying the lower courts’ reinstatement while the Supreme Court considers an emergency application from the administration. The stay effectively allowed the president to remove Slaughter immediately even though the underlying dispute remains unresolved. The order did not include a signed full opinion explaining the Court’s reasoning; it functions as an interim procedural step.
After the stay was entered, Slaughter issued a brief public statement saying she would “see this case through to the end” and stressing the need for transparency and accountability at bipartisan independent agencies. The administration framed the move as restoring the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch under Article II and argued that removal restrictions improperly constrain presidential control.
Analysis & Implications
The Supreme Court’s order signals a possible willingness to curtail for-cause protections for independent-agency officials, a change that would have broad regulatory consequences. If the Court ultimately approves unfettered presidential removal, future presidents could reshape independent commissions more quickly, potentially altering enforcement priorities at agencies that regulate markets, financial institutions, labor, and safety. That shift would compress the tenure-based insulation that has underpinned multi-decade regulatory stability.
A decision narrowing Humphrey’s Executor would also affect agency structure beyond the FTC: the Securities and Exchange Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Housing Finance Agency and others rely on similar statutory protections. Regulatory continuity and bipartisan oversight could give way to greater turnover tied to electoral cycles, changing how rules are written, enforced and litigated.
Economically, accelerated leadership changes at the FTC could change merger enforcement and antitrust scrutiny, affecting deal approvals and corporate behavior. Markets often react to regulatory uncertainty; companies may delay transactions or alter compliance strategies if they expect enforcement priorities to shift with each administration. Conversely, proponents argue greater presidential control enhances accountability and democratic responsiveness.
Comparison & Data
| Case | Year | Effect on Removal Power |
|---|---|---|
| Humphrey’s Executor | 1935 | Upheld for-cause removal limits for FTC-style agencies |
| Recent D.C. Circuit & District Court rulings | 2025 | Applied Humphrey to reinstate commissioner |
| Supreme Court order (stay) | 2025 | Temporarily allowed removal pending further review |
The table highlights a trajectory: a long-standing 1935 precedent, two 2025 lower-court decisions affirming that precedent, and a 2025 Supreme Court order that temporarily departs from those outcomes. That procedural stay does not resolve legal questions but increases the likelihood the Court will revisit the underlying constitutional doctrine.
Reactions & Quotes
Federal officials, legal scholars and industry groups responded quickly. The FTC’s structure and mission drew contrasting assessments about the public interest and executive authority.
“I will see this case through to the end,” Slaughter said after the order, stressing the need for agency transparency and accountability.
Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, former FTC commissioner (statement)
Administration spokespeople framed the stay as necessary to restore proper executive control and to clarify Article II powers; independent advocates warned of politicization risks if the Court eliminates for-cause protections.
“Removal restrictions unreasonably limit the president’s ability to direct the executive branch,” argued administration counsel in filings urging the stay.
U.S. Department of Justice (court filing)
Academic voices emphasized the potential institutional effects: some scholars said greater presidential removal authority could undermine regulatory independence, while others argued it enhances democratic accountability. Market participants and trade groups noted uncertainty about enforcement priorities as a near-term risk.
Unconfirmed
- It is not yet confirmed how broadly the Supreme Court will rule on removal restrictions; the stay only addresses immediate relief and not the final merits.
- Any timeline for a full Supreme Court opinion or oral argument schedule has not been publicly set at the time of this report.
- Predictions about how other independent agencies will be affected remain speculative until the Court issues a definitive ruling.
Bottom Line
The Sept. 8, 2025 Supreme Court stay allowing President Trump to remove an FTC commissioner pending appeal is a high-stakes procedural move that increases the chances the Court will revisit and potentially narrow a 90-year-old precedent protecting agency independence. The immediate effect enabled executive action; the lasting impact will depend on a forthcoming substantive ruling that could reshape the balance between presidential control and independent regulation across multiple agencies.
Observers should watch for the Court’s reasoning if and when it issues a full opinion: a ruling curtailing Humphrey’s Executor would accelerate turnover at regulatory bodies and could shift enforcement priorities, while a decision preserving for-cause protections would maintain longer-term insulation from partisan swings. For now, the legal contest continues and agencies, businesses, and Congress will be closely monitoring the next steps.
Sources
- NBC News (news report)
- Federal Trade Commission (official agency site)
- Supreme Court of the United States (official court site)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (court website)