The court seemed poised to give the president a win but questions remain as to how executive power will change.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Dec. 8 over whether Congress could limit President Donald Trump’s ability to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
The case, known as Trump v. Slaughter, focused on Trump’s firing of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter but is expected to impact a long list of other agencies.
Congress has passed laws limiting the reasons for which presidents can remove top officials from federal agencies, including the FTC. Trump has argued that those types of restrictions intrude on his authority as the head of the executive branch. He has also specifically asked the court to overrule a 90-year-old precedent called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld Congress’s protections for FTC commissioners.
During oral arguments, the justices waded into complex questions about the separation of powers, independent agencies, and the future of the federal government.
Here are some of the main takeaways.
Slaughter Faces Uphill Battle
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Humphrey’s Executor held that Congress could protect FTC commissioners from removal because they exercised “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power.
Lower court judges have cited that decision in ruling against Trump’s firings of Slaughter and other officials. However, a key question remains over what exactly constitutes quasi-legislative versus executive power.
Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t take up the administration’s request to overrule Humphrey’s Executor, it might still uphold Trump’s firing of Slaughter. That’s because some of the justices’ comments indicated they were sympathetic to Trump’s argument that the current FTC wielded significantly more executive power than in the 1930s and therefore should receive less protection from Congress.
One of the examples U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration, cited was the commission’s ability to enter into agreements with foreign countries—albeit with approval from the secretary of state. Justice Amy Coney Barrett similarly cited this power during oral argument, while Chief Justice John Roberts said the FTC looks much different in its current form than it did originally.
This point from Roberts followed an opinion he expressed in a 2020 case, when he said the Supreme Court’s “conclusion that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time.”
By Sam Dorman
