Chief Justice Roberts Allows Trump to Oust FTC Commissioner/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ Chief Justice John Roberts has allowed President Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter for now. The move bypasses lower court rulings that required cause for dismissal. Slaughter’s lawsuit challenging her termination remains ongoing.
FTC Removal Dispute Quick Looks
- Roberts’ order: Temporarily allows Trump to remove FTC member Rebecca Slaughter.
- Lower courts blocked: Previous rulings required cause for her removal.
- Ongoing lawsuit: Slaughter’s legal challenge still in progress.
- Emergency docket: Roberts responded quickly to Trump’s appeal.
- Constitutional shift: Signals rollback of 90-year-old legal precedent.
- DOJ stance: Claims executive agencies serve at presidential discretion.
- Precedent challenged: Case undermines 1935 Humphrey’s Executor ruling.
- Implications ahead: Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook could be next.
Deep Look: Chief Justice Roberts Lets Trump Remove FTC Member, For Now
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8, 2025 — Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a temporary order that permits President Donald Trump to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter, despite ongoing legal disputes over whether the president has that authority. This emergency action marks a significant development in Trump’s efforts to expand executive control over independent regulatory agencies.
Roberts’ unsigned, one-paragraph order on Monday temporarily halts lower court rulings that had reinstated Slaughter after her spring dismissal by Trump. Those lower courts found that federal law protects FTC commissioners from removal unless there is clear misconduct or neglect of duty. Roberts’ ruling, however, allows Trump to sideline her while the case is under review.
This interim decision, though not final, underscores a continuing trend: the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is increasingly willing to dismantle long-standing legal doctrines that protected independent agencies from presidential interference.
Why Was Slaughter Removed?
Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee, was dismissed earlier this year amid Trump’s efforts to reshape the FTC, which plays a critical role in consumer protection and antitrust enforcement. Her termination triggered immediate legal action, with courts temporarily siding with her claim that she could only be removed for cause under statutory protections.
Slaughter has since bounced in and out of the commission as court orders shifted. She filed a lawsuit, asserting that her dismissal violated the 1935 Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor. That ruling had shielded members of independent agencies from arbitrary removal by the president, allowing them to serve fixed terms unless serious wrongdoing occurred.
What Does Roberts’ Decision Mean?
While the Supreme Court has not made a final ruling on the case, Roberts’ decision to intervene suggests a willingness to revisit or further weaken Humphrey’s Executor. The order came in response to an emergency request filed by the Trump administration, arguing that presidents must have full authority over executive branch personnel, including at independent agencies like the FTC.
The Justice Department echoed this stance, asserting that commissioners serve at the pleasure of the president and that limiting removal power interferes with executive accountability.
Roberts has asked Slaughter’s legal team to respond to the administration’s arguments by next week, signaling that more judicial review is on the horizon.
Potential Broader Impact
This latest development fits into a larger pattern of decisions by the Roberts Court that have gradually eroded protections for independent agencies. The court has already sided with Trump in cases involving firings at other boards, and future challenges are expected—possibly including an upcoming test involving Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook.
Legal scholars say that if the Supreme Court ultimately overturns Humphrey’s Executor, the move could fundamentally shift the balance of power between the presidency and federal regulatory bodies. Such a change would give future presidents far greater influence over agencies designed to operate outside of direct political control.
“This is another step in dismantling the administrative state,” said one legal expert familiar with the case. “Agencies like the FTC were meant to have insulation from political pressure. That firewall is quickly eroding.”
History of the FTC and Legal Precedents
The Federal Trade Commission, established by Congress in 1914, is tasked with enforcing consumer protection laws and preventing anticompetitive business practices. It traditionally comprises five commissioners—three from the president’s party and two from the opposition—appointed for staggered terms.
The Humphrey’s Executor case in 1935 involved the FTC itself and laid the groundwork for modern administrative independence. The court ruled unanimously that President Franklin D. Roosevelt could not remove a commissioner without cause, thus preserving the agency’s impartiality.
That precedent held firm for nearly a century but has faced increasing scrutiny from conservative legal theorists, particularly during Trump’s presidency. They argue that all federal agencies exercising executive power should fall under direct presidential control, in line with the Constitution’s “unitary executive” theory.
What Happens Next?
The legal battle over Slaughter’s removal is far from over. While Roberts’ emergency order grants Trump a temporary win, the full Supreme Court could ultimately hear arguments in the case. Slaughter’s legal team is expected to respond in writing next week, after which further action may be taken.
For now, however, Trump’s grip on the FTC tightens, and the precedent shielding independent agencies from political interference grows shakier.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.