The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 8, 2025, in Trump v. Slaughter, a case examining whether President Donald Trump may remove Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. The justices’ questions suggested a sharp divide over limits on presidential power and the future of a 90‑year‑old precedent that has helped insulate independent agencies from at‑will firings.
On December 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court convened for oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case testing whether President Donald Trump can lawfully remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without showing cause.
Slaughter, a Democrat, was first nominated to the FTC by President Trump in 2018 and unanimously confirmed by the Senate to a Democratic seat on the five‑member commission. She was later renominated by President Biden and again confirmed, according to The Washington Post and other outlets, to a term that extends well beyond his first term in office.
In March 2025, Trump fired Slaughter — and fellow Democratic commissioner Alvaro Bedoya — despite statutory language that limits removal of FTC commissioners to cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Trump gave no such cause, asserting instead that the statute’s removal protections are unconstitutional and that commissioners must be removable at will.
Slaughter quickly sued, arguing that her ouster violated both the FTC Act and Supreme Court precedent. In July 2025, a federal district court in Washington, D.C., agreed and ruled that her firing was unlawful, relying on the Court’s 1935 decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld for‑cause removal protections for FTC commissioners. The court reinstated Slaughter and barred the administration from interfering with her work. A subsequent bid to block her reinstatement was rejected by the D.C. Circuit, but the Trump administration then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
On September 22, 2025, the justices, acting on the Court’s emergency or “shadow” docket, granted a stay of the district court’s order and agreed to hear the case before the appeals court issued a judgment, as reflected in the Court’s stay order and summarized by legal analysts. That temporary order allowed Slaughter’s removal to remain in effect while the justices considered the merits.
At Monday’s arguments, several conservative justices signaled openness to weakening or overturning Humphrey’s Executor, which for nearly 90 years has limited presidential power to fire members of certain independent agencies. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether the 1935 ruling fits today’s administrative state and, as reported by The Washington Post, described Humphrey’s Executor as a “dried husk,” noting that the modern FTC wields far more executive power than when the Court first upheld its structure.
Other members of the Court’s conservative majority raised similar concerns. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the parties on what limits, if any, would remain on presidential removal power if the Court were to narrow or abandon the 1935 precedent, according to coverage by outlets including The Washington Post and Yahoo News.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, urged the Court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor. Sauer disparaged that decision as an outdated “decaying husk” and an “indefensible outlier” that has “not withstood the test of time,” arguing instead for a robust “unitary executive” in which the president has broad authority to remove executive officials. Those characterizations of the precedent were reported by Yahoo News and other national outlets.
Slaughter’s legal team, by contrast, urged the justices to preserve long‑standing protections for independent agencies. Her counsel argued that multimember independent commissions have been part of the federal government since the early republic and that Congress has repeatedly structured such bodies so their leaders can be removed only for cause. According to The Washington Post, Slaughter’s attorneys emphasized that these protections reflect a balance among the branches of government and help ensure expert, nonpartisan decision‑making.
The Court’s three liberal justices expressed strong skepticism about the administration’s position and the breadth of the unitary‑executive theory. Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Sauer that the government was effectively asking the Court “to destroy the structure of government,” while Justice Elena Kagan warned that once the Court starts down the path of dismantling protections for independent agencies, “you end up with massive, unchecked power in the hands of the president,” echoing related concerns that “once you’re down this road, it’s a little bit hard to see how you stop,” according to The Washington Post and Yahoo News. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson similarly stressed that independent agencies exist because Congress has concluded that some issues should be handled by nonpartisan experts.
The litigation has broad implications beyond the FTC. Legal commentators and policy analysts note that more than two dozen federal bodies — including the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission — rely on for‑cause removal protections for their leaders. According to reporting by Forbes and analysis from the Constitutional Accountability Center, Trump has already targeted several such officials, arguing that presidents must be free to remove them over policy disagreements.
Advocates for Slaughter warn that a sweeping ruling for Trump could unsettle the structure of much of the modern administrative state. The Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of hundreds of members of Congress, has argued that weakening or discarding Humphrey’s Executor “would profoundly destabilize institutions that are now inextricably intertwined with the fabric of American governance.” Slaughter herself has maintained in public statements that independence at the FTC allows decisions to be made on the merits and based on the evidence, rather than partisan pressure.
A decision in Trump v. Slaughter is expected by the end of the Court’s current term, likely in June 2026, according to multiple outlets. However the justices rule, the case is poised to become a defining moment in the long‑running battle over presidential control of independent federal agencies and the scope of the unitary‑executive theory.
