The case could lead the justices to overturn a 90-year-old precedent on separation of powers.
For months, federal judges have been ordering President Donald Trump to reinstate heads of agencies despite his interest in removing them.
Their decisions have been based on a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent, known as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, that says Congress can limit the reasons for which presidents remove officials like members of labor boards.
However, that precedent and various legal blocks on Trump’s firings could be removed depending on how the Supreme Court rules in an upcoming case—potentially giving Trump and his successors more flexibility with personnel.
On Dec. 8, the Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter, which focuses on the president’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Humphrey’s Executor
In a letter sent on March 18, Trump told Slaughter that her continued service was “inconsistent” with his administration’s priorities and that he was removing her pursuant to his authority under Article II.
He notably did not identify any “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance,” which are the bases for which Congress said in the Federal Trade Act that presidents could fire commissioners.
Instead, Trump said that Humphrey’s Executor didn’t apply to the current commissioners because the FTC holds more executive power than it did when Humphrey’s Executor was decided in 1935.
Like Trump, former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had similarly fired FTC Commissioner William Humphrey without identifying a cause listed by Congress.
Instead, he dismissed Humphrey after describing the two as having different visions for the FTC.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled against Roosevelt.
Its primary holding was that commissioners exercise quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial power and therefore can receive greater protection than other agency officials.
“To the extent that it exercises any executive function … [the FTC] does so in the discharge and effectuation of its quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial powers, or as an agency of the legislative or judicial departments of the government,” then-Chief Justice John Sutherland said.
By Sam Dorman
