Trump v. Slaughter
The Court let the President immediately remove a Federal Trade Commission commissioner without cause, pausing a lower court order that had protected her seat while the legal challenge to her firing continues.
The decision fast-tracks a blockbuster legal showdown over whether to overrule a 1935 precedent that has long let Congress shield independent agency officials from politically motivated presidential firing — a ruling that could fundamentally reshape the independence of federal regulatory agencies.
How it got here: The President fired an FTC commissioner; a D.C. federal district court issued an order protecting her on July 17, 2025; the President applied to the Supreme Court for an emergency stay of that order.
The Case in Depth
What happened
The President fired Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from her seat on the Federal Trade Commission — the agency that polices anticompetitive business practices and protects consumers — without giving any reason. Federal law bars removing FTC commissioners except for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct. Slaughter sued, arguing the firing was illegal, and a Washington D.C. federal district court issued an order in her favor, blocking the President from removing her.
The question before the Court
Can the President immediately fire a Federal Trade Commission commissioner without cause while a lawsuit over that firing continues, and should the ninety-year-old precedent protecting agency officials from presidential removal be overruled?
The Court's answer
Yes — the Court allowed the President to immediately remove Slaughter from the FTC while the legal challenge plays out, staying the district court's protective order. The removal takes effect now even though Congress has long banned removing FTC commissioners without cause and a 1935 Supreme Court precedent — Humphrey's Executor — unanimously upheld that congressional limit.
The Court also fast-tracked the case for merits argument in December 2025, asking two pointed questions: whether the statutory job protections for FTC members violate the constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President, and whether courts can ever prevent a president from firing a government official through any kind of court order. Both questions invite the Court to fundamentally reshape how independent regulatory agencies operate.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Members of independent federal agencies — including the FTC, which polices competition and consumer fraud — can now be removed by the President without cause while this case plays out. If the Court ultimately overrules the 1935 precedent, Congress would lose its longstanding ability to protect agency members from removal, making all independent regulatory agencies directly answerable to whoever is in the White House.
What changes now
The stay remains in effect — meaning Slaughter's removal stands — until the Court issues its final ruling. The case will be argued before the Supreme Court in December 2025. The Court will then decide whether to formally overrule the 1935 Humphrey's Executor precedent and whether courts may ever order a president to reinstate a fired official. A final decision is expected after argument concludes.
What this does not decide
The stay is temporary and does not decide whether the President's removal of the FTC commissioner was actually lawful. The Court has not yet overruled Humphrey's Executor — that question is squarely before the Court for the merits argument. The order also does not address the broader operations of the FTC or any other independent agency.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Kagan
Justice Kagan argued that the ninety-year-old Humphrey's Executor precedent is binding law and flatly prohibits the President from firing FTC commissioners without cause — making the stay legally improper until that precedent is formally overruled. She criticized the majority for using the emergency docket, stay order by stay order, to hand the President unlimited removal power over independent agencies that Congress deliberately designed to be bipartisan and insulated from political pressure, effectively transferring governmental authority from Congress to the President before the merits are ever decided.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- To grant an emergency stay, the Court must generally find that the applicant — here, the President — is likely to succeed on the ultimate legal question, would face irreparable harm without the pause, and that the balance of harms and public interest favor temporarily blocking the lower court's order. The per curiam order grants the stay without explaining which factors it weighed or why.
- The Court simultaneously treated the stay application as a petition for review before the court of appeals had ruled — a rare step called 'certiorari before judgment' — and granted that petition too. Skipping the usual appeals-court step signals the Court views the underlying legal questions as too urgent to wait for the normal process.
- The Court directed the parties to brief and argue two specific questions for the December 2025 argument session: first, whether the federal law shielding FTC commissioners from removal except for cause violates the Constitution's separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches; and second, whether any court — using any legal theory — may prevent a president from firing a federal official.
- The first question explicitly asks whether the Court should overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States — the 1935 decision that unanimously held Congress may protect certain agency officials from presidential removal when those agencies perform quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial functions. The dissent argues that until that precedent is formally overruled, it remains binding law and bars granting the stay, because the FTC is precisely the kind of agency Humphrey's Executor was decided to protect.