In a move that has significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, Chief Justice John Roberts has allowed President Donald Trump’s decision to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), to stand for now. This decision comes in light of the ongoing legal battle surrounding the application of the Supreme Court’s 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States.
The landmark decision in Humphrey’s Executor established that FTC commissioners could only be removed for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. However, the recent developments suggest that the Court may be revisiting these long-standing precedents, given the nature of the executive powers that the FTC reportedly exercises.
Trump’s decision to remove Slaughter and another appointee, Alvaro Bedoya, was made via an email citing their alignment with the administration’s priorities rather than performance issues, triggering a legal challenge. This challenge was initially successful at the district court level, with U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ordering Slaughter’s reinstatement due to the clarity of federal law regarding FTC commissioners’ removal.
The decision from Roberts arrived amidst an ongoing appeal from the Trump administration to block Judge AliKhan’s order, a strategy they also applied in cases concerning the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The appeals process was also marked by divided opinions in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which refused to pause the lower court’s decision.
With Roberts’ administrative stay now in place, the immediate reinstatement of Slaughter has been prevented, and the case’s implications for interpretations of federal law governing independent agencies remain to be fully resolved. This move underscores the fluid interplay between judicial interpretations and executive actions amidst evolving legal norms.