Federal Trade Commission Act
Trump v. Slaughter
Date: June 29, 2026
Issue: Do the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) violate the separation of powers and, if so, should Humphrey’s Executor be overruled?
Case Summary: In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FTC’s for-cause removal protections are unconstitutional, and the president of the United States can remove FTC commissioners at will.
The Federal Trade Commission is a regulatory agency for which commissioners exercise its rulemaking, enforcement and adjudicatory powers. Under the FTC Act, the agency may have up to five commissioners, each serving a seven-year term, and no more than three commissioners may belong to the same political party. Moreover, the FTC Act contains for-cause removal protections that provide the commissioners may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
In September 2025, former FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya sued Donald Trump and other executive officials after the president fired them in March 2025. President Trump did not cite a statutory cause for their removal. Instead, he told the commissioners their “continued service on the FTC was inconsistent with administration priorities” and that he removed them under his authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The commissioners asked the court to restore them to office, arguing their removal violated both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act. However, Bedoya later resigned voluntarily, and the court dismissed his claims.
In July 2025, Judge Loren AliKhan of the District Court of the District of Columbia granted Slaughter summary judgment and issued a permanent injunction restoring her position. The court cited Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, where the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the FTC Act’s removal protections were constitutional, and that the president could not fire FTC commissioners at will because their duties were “neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.” On appeal, the government moved for a stay of the injunction pending appeal, but the D.C. Circuit Court denied. The U.S. Supreme Court later stayed the injunction and agreed to hear the case.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts held that the president may remove FTC commissioners at will. The Court ruled that the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections violate the Constitution’s separation of powers because Article II gives the president the executive power and the authority to supervise and remove executive officers to ensure the faithful execution of the laws. The Court based its decision on the Constitution’s text and structure, the Federalist Papers, the debates at the Constitutional Convention, and the historic “Decision of 1789.” According to the Court, executive officers serve under the president, not as independent officials. As a result, the Court held that Congress cannot shield FTC commissioners from presidential removal because doing so limits the president’s constitutional authority to direct and oversee the Executive Branch.
Next, the Court explained that the Constitution’s text, history, and structure, together with its precedents, confirm that the president may remove executive officers at will. The Court traced that authority from the First Congress’s “Decision of 1789” through Myers v. United States, which recognized the president’s broad removal power. The Court again cited Humphrey’s Executor and concluded that its reasoning could no longer stand because later decisions recognized that the FTC exercises substantial executive power. The Court reasoned FTC commissioners exercised enough executive authority to permit at-will removal even in the 1930s. “All that is left” of Humphrey’s Executor, in the majority’s view, is the principle that an agency exercising no executive power need not be subject to presidential removal. For these reasons, the Court overruled Humphrey’s Executor.
Finally, the Court held that the FTC’s for-cause removal protections violate the separation of powers because the agency exercises core executive powers. The Court explained that the FTC enforces and administers dozens of federal statutes, issues regulations with the force of law, investigates businesses, conducts administrative proceedings, and files civil enforcement actions on behalf of the United States. Because the FTC performs these executive functions, the president must have the authority to remove its commissioners at will.
In concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed that the president may remove FTC commissioners at will because executive officers must remain accountable to the president. He cautioned, however, that the majority’s decision gives the president greater control over agencies that exercise broad legislative and judicial authority through rulemaking and administrative adjudication. Justice Gorsuch questioned whether Congress would have delegated such sweeping powers if it had known the president would ultimately control those agencies. He concluded by urging Congress and the courts to restore the Constitution’s separation of powers by returning legislative power to Congress and judicial power to the courts.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan, argued the Court discarded nearly a century of precedent and longstanding historical practice by invalidating the FTC’s for-cause removal protections. She maintained that the Constitution allows Congress to create independent, bipartisan agencies that can operate with expertise, stability, and impartiality while remaining insulated from direct presidential control. Relying on Humphrey’s Executor and the consistent practices of Congress and multiple presidents, she concluded the FTC’s structure is constitutional.
Bottom Line: The Court’s ruling eliminates the FTC’s for-cause removal protections, giving the president broad authority to remove Commissioners without cause. The ruling does not alter any agency’s underlying statutory authority. The laws they administer remain in force, and their powers to regulate, investigate, enforce, and adjudicate are unchanged. What has changed is presidential control over the officials exercising those powers.
Document: Opinion
