The Supreme Court’s recent order, issued on Monday, allows former President Donald Trump to proceed with the removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, while putting into question the president’s authority to dismiss the heads of independent agencies. The case aligns with ongoing deliberations about the executive branch’s power over federal agencies and could have broader implications for existing legal precedents. Notably, this new development stems from an unsigned order by the court, deciding to hear the case of Slaughter, one of the FTC’s commissioners, originally appointed by Trump and reappointed by President Biden in 2023.
The judicial debate has surfaced against the backdrop of earlier rulings regarding Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), both facing similar dismissals. Federal statutes generally restrict the president’s ability to remove independent agency officials without cause, referencing inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance as valid reasons for termination. Trump had attempted to dismiss Slaughter, along with fellow FTC commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, without detailing such justifications. You can read more about this series of events on the Supreme Court’s detailed order.
In light of this action, Justice Elena Kagan, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, voicing concerns about the erosion of agency independence and bipartisanship. Kagan underscored that allowing the president to dismiss commissioners like Slaughter without specified cause contravenes legal standards upheld since the 1935 ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The justice’s dissent emphasized that such a precedent remains binding unless explicitly overturned by the court.
While the Supreme Court agreed to accelerate its review of Slaughter’s case, it did not extend this urgency to Harris and Wilcox’s situations, allowing their challenges to proceed in lower courts. The court is set to address key constitutional questions, including whether the protection given to FTC commissioners conflicts with the constitutionally-defined separation of powers, and if Humphrey’s Executor should be revisited. Furthermore, it will examine whether federal courts possess the authority to mandate the reinstatement of improperly removed officials. Oral arguments for Slaughter’s case are scheduled to commence in December.
For further details and ongoing updates, the full article is available at SCOTUSblog.