Supreme Court Allows President to Fire FTC Commissioners Without Cause

Why it matters locally: This Supreme Court decision could influence the independence of federal agencies with regulatory power over industries prominent in Virginia, such as energy and consumer markets, potentially leading to shifts in federal oversight directly impacting the state's economy and businesses.

---

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Monday that President Trump may fire members of the Federal Trade Commission without demonstrating inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. The decision overturns a 1935 Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey's Executor v. United States and invalidates the federal law that had restricted presidential removal of FTC commissioners. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the president needs the ability to remove subordinates in order to maintain accountability for the executive branch's performance. "The President must have the assistance of officers he can trust," Roberts stated. "Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work." The FTC has five commissioners, no more than three from any single political party. Each serves a seven-year term after presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. The Federal Trade Commission administers approximately 80 statutes affecting the nation's economy, investigates complaints, enforces compliance through administrative proceedings, and files civil lawsuits on behalf of the United States. Roberts noted that the FTC clearly exercises executive power. The majority reasoned that officials exercising such power must answer to the president. Roberts emphasized the decision applied narrowly to agencies with general administrative control functions. The case arose after Trump removed FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter in 2024 without citing legal cause. Trump stated in a removal letter that keeping Slaughter would contradict his administration's priorities. Slaughter challenged her removal in federal court. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ordered her reinstatement, and a divided appeals court panel upheld that decision, citing Humphrey's Executor as controlling precedent. The Supreme Court froze that ruling before hearing oral arguments in December. In his majority opinion, Roberts distinguished the FTC's role from the narrow quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions the 1935 court had described. "At this point," Roberts wrote, "all that is left of Humphrey's is its observation that an agency that 'exercises no part of the executive power' need not fall within the rule of Presidential removal." Roberts acknowledged that some entities created by Congress do not necessarily carry executive power, including the Boy Scouts of America and Georgetown University. He also noted that the decision did not address the Federal Reserve "to the extent that it follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States," which historically influenced monetary policy without plenary presidential control. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor's 49-page dissent argued that Congress established multi-member agencies like the FTC to address complex policy questions while maintaining independence from absolute partisan control. She contended the decision grants the president power exceeding that held by the English Crown against which the nation's founders revolted. Sotomayor predicted the ruling would shift authority over dozens of independent commissions, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Merit Systems Protection Board, into direct presidential control. The decision reflects competing constitutional theories about presidential power. Roberts grounded the majority's reasoning in the Constitution's assignment of executive power to the president and the presidential duty to ensure laws receive faithful execution. The dissenters argued the Constitution's structure was designed to distribute executive power across multiple branches and that Congress created independent agencies to prevent concentration of authority. Roberts emphasized that Monday's decision resolved only the narrow question of whether officials falling within the president's general administrative control must be removable at will. The ruling does not address federal judges without lifetime tenure or determine the scope of executive power in contexts not before the court.