Presidential removal power FTC commissioner gained new significance after the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, despite long-standing protections. The decision represents a major shift in how much control a president may exercise over independent agencies. While the final ruling is still pending, the Court’s temporary order already signals a willingness to reconsider nearly a century of precedent.
In early 2025, President Trump dismissed two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission, including Rebecca Slaughter. Traditionally, FTC commissioners could only be removed for specific reasons such as neglect of duty or malfeasance. That limitation came from a 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which protected independent agencies from political interference.
Slaughter challenged her dismissal in federal court, arguing that the president did not have the constitutional authority to remove her without cause. A lower court sided with her and temporarily blocked the removal. The case quickly made its way to the Supreme Court, which in September 2025 granted Trump’s request to proceed with the removal while the broader legal questions are considered.
The Court’s decision was not a final ruling on the merits. Instead, it allowed Trump to remove Slaughter immediately, while setting the stage for full oral arguments later this year. The justices will review whether removal protections for FTC commissioners are constitutional and whether Humphrey’s Executor should be overturned.
The majority did not provide detailed reasoning in its short order, but three justices—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—dissented. They argued that allowing removal without a final decision undermines congressional intent and effectively weakens the independence of regulatory agencies.
The debate centers on the tension between executive authority and agency independence.
This landmark case upheld limits on presidential removal power, recognizing that agencies like the FTC perform both legislative and judicial functions. Congress created these agencies to be insulated from direct political control, which meant presidents could not remove commissioners at will.
An earlier case that affirmed broad presidential authority to remove purely executive officers. It did not apply directly to independent agencies, but it remains part of the foundation for removal power arguments.
More recently, the Court limited removal protections for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reasoning that certain agency structures concentrate too much unchecked power. That decision hinted at a broader skepticism toward Humphrey’s Executor.
Together, these cases frame the current debate: should the president have the power to remove officials from independent agencies at will, or should Congress be able to shield those agencies from political pressure?
The Supreme Court’s willingness to let Trump remove a commissioner before resolving the legal questions suggests it may be ready to weaken or overturn Humphrey’s Executor. If that happens, the effects could extend well beyond the FTC.
Agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Securities and Exchange Commission all operate under similar protections. If presidents gain the authority to dismiss commissioners for policy disagreements, these agencies could lose much of their independence.
Supporters of expanded presidential power argue that agencies wield significant influence over the economy and daily life, so elected leaders should maintain direct control. Opponents warn that removing protections could politicize regulatory bodies, leading to instability and undermining public trust.
Legal scholars and opposition voices have raised concerns about the Court’s order.
First, they argue that dismantling removal protections would politicize agencies that are supposed to act as neutral regulators. Decisions on competition policy, communications rules, or labor disputes could shift dramatically with each administration, reducing consistency.
Second, critics point out that agency members provide stability through staggered terms. If presidents can remove them freely, that design becomes meaningless, and regulatory agendas could swing sharply with political cycles.
Third, there is concern about the balance of power. Congress deliberately structured independent agencies to perform certain functions outside direct presidential control. Weakening that structure could tip the balance heavily toward the executive branch, upsetting the separation of powers.
Supporters of Trump’s position argue that presidential removal power is essential for accountability. They believe that if agencies make rules with broad impacts on the economy, the president should be able to ensure those agencies reflect the policies voters elected him to carry out.
Advocates also argue that independent agencies often hold immense regulatory authority without being directly accountable to the public. Allowing presidents to replace commissioners ensures that unelected officials cannot resist the policy direction of the executive branch indefinitely.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in December 2025. The justices will decide whether to uphold Humphrey’s Executor or to strike it down, reshaping the balance of power between presidents and independent agencies.
If the Court overturns or significantly narrows Humphrey’s Executor, presidents will likely gain broad authority to remove commissioners from agencies like the FTC, NLRB, FCC, and SEC. This could reshape how regulatory policy is developed and enforced in the United States.
Congress may respond by seeking new ways to safeguard agency independence, though constitutional limits will constrain its options. Meanwhile, legal battles could emerge across multiple agencies as dismissed officials challenge their removals.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allow President Trump to remove an FTC commissioner marks a pivotal moment in the debate over presidential removal power. While not a final ruling, it indicates the Court may be ready to reconsider decades of precedent protecting independent agencies.
The outcome could expand presidential influence over regulatory commissions, reshape the role of Congress in structuring agencies, and alter the balance of power among the three branches of government. For now, the issue remains unsettled, but the coming months promise a decision that could redefine the limits of executive authority in the United States.
Do Follow USA Glory On Instagram
Read Next – Risk of a U.S. Government Shutdown Looms; Trump Meets Dem Leaders
The University of Pittsburgh, commonly known as Pitt, has maintained its position as 32nd among…
Troy University has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report as one of the…
Salisbury University has recently been recognized as one of the best colleges in the United…
In a significant development, Hamas has announced that it will release all remaining hostages held…
In a recent statement, President Trump urged Israel to “immediately stop” bombing Gaza, emphasizing his…
U.S. financial markets experienced notable movements as Treasury yields ticked higher and crude oil prices…