Trump v. Slaughter
Headline: Court allows the President to immediately remove an FTC commissioner by staying a lower-court order and agrees to decide whether laws limiting presidential firing power violate separation of powers.
Holding: The application for a stay is granted, allowing immediate removal of an FTC commissioner while the Court reviews whether statutory removal protections violate the separation of powers and whether courts can block removals.
- Allows the President to remove an FTC commissioner immediately while the case proceeds.
- Potentially weakens independence and bipartisan makeup of independent agencies.
- Makes the Court the deciding body on limits to presidential firing power.
Summary
Background
The dispute involves the President and members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). After an FTC commissioner was targeted for removal, a federal district court issued an order on July 17, 2025 that blocked the removal. The President asked the Justices for emergency relief, and the Court granted a stay of that district-court order while taking up the case for full review.
Reasoning
The Court accepted two central questions for argument: whether statutory protections that limit the President’s ability to remove FTC members violate the separation of powers and whether the Court should overrule Humphrey’s Executor, and whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office. The Court treated the emergency application as a petition for immediate review, granted the petition, and set a briefing and argument schedule for December 2025. The stay lets the President discharge an FTC member immediately while the Court considers these issues.
Real world impact
The order affects independent agencies like the FTC because it allows the President to remove commissioners during the lawsuit. According to the dissent, that immediate removal could undermine agencies’ bipartisan structure and independence. The stay is temporary: it lasts until this Court issues its final judgment, and the ultimate, permanent rule will depend on the Court’s December argument and later decision.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented from the stay. She argued Humphrey’s Executor still controls, that Congress can lawfully limit removal for independent agencies, and that emergency relief should not be used to transfer authority from Congress to the President.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?