The Supreme Court recently considered a case that challenges a foundational decision regarding presidential authority over firing leaders of independent agencies. This issue arises from the 1935 precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. The case in question, termed Trump v. Slaughter, focuses on the legality of former President Trump’s decision to remove Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter from their positions at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in March of this year.
Arguing on behalf of the government, Solicitor General D. John Sauer contested that Humphrey’s Executor represents a deviation from traditional interpretations of presidential power as outlined in Article II of the Constitution. Sauer described the precedent as an outdated decision that threatens the constitutional structure and the liberty of citizens. In response to their dismissal, Slaughter and Bedoya initiated legal action, alleging violations of multiple federal statutes and the Constitution. While Bedoya later resigned, a U.S. District Court reinstated Slaughter based on the Humphrey’s Executor decision.
The Trump Administration pursued an appeal, stressing that recent jurisprudence, exemplified by the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. Wilcox, should inform contemporary interpretations of executive power. Acting as Circuit Justice for the District Court, Chief Justice John Roberts provided a stay on Slaughter’s reinstatement. The Supreme Court agreed in September to hear this contentious case, which has been a focal point for discussion among legal experts and practitioners.
The case has not only reignited debates about the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies but has also revealed potential ideological divides within the Court. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Elena Kagan’s contrasting remarks highlight the contention at play: while Kavanaugh expressed concerns over unaccountable agency influence, Kagan worried about the risks of unchecked presidential authority. As deliberations continue, analysts predict that this decision, expected in June, might play out along ideological lines within the Court.
This examination of presidential authority comes in the context of President Trump’s broader efforts to secure control over independent agencies. His attempts to dismiss leadership figures extend beyond the FTC to positions such as the Librarian of Congress and the Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. The outcome of this Supreme Court case could redefine the executive reach over independent agency governance in profound ways, drawing keen attention from corporate legal departments and law firms nationwide.