Judge Reinstates Democrat on FTC After Illegal Trump Firing/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ A federal judge has ruled that President Trump violated the Constitution by firing two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission. One commissioner, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, has been reinstated, while the other, Alvaro Bedoya, resigned after filing suit. The decision reinforces long-standing legal protections for independent agencies and may influence future presidential authority.
Trump’s FTC Firings Quick Looks
- Unconstitutional Dismissals: Judge ruled Trump unlawfully fired two Democrats from the FTC.
- Bedoya Resigned: Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya stepped down despite the legal challenge.
- Slaughter Reinstated: Rebecca Kelly Slaughter will resume her FTC commissioner role.
- Presidential Overreach: Judge cited 1935 Supreme Court case Humphrey’s Executor as precedent.
- Long-Term Terms: FTC commissioners serve staggered seven-year terms and are protected from political removal.
- Plaintiffs’ Argument: Warned of unchecked executive power if Trump’s actions are upheld.
- DOJ Defense: Argued FTC’s evolving role justifies presidential control over commissioners.
- Judge’s Rationale: Trump’s firings ignored 90 years of bipartisan precedent.
- Potential Ripple Effect: Ruling may impact other independent bodies like the Federal Reserve.
- Next Step: Trump administration plans to appeal the decision.
Judge Reinstates Democrat on FTC After Illegal Trump Firing
Deep Look
WASHINGTON — July 18, 2025 — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump violated the Constitution when he abruptly fired two Democratic commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) earlier this year. The ruling is a major setback for Trump’s continued efforts to assert authority over traditionally independent government agencies.
In a decisive opinion, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan held that Trump lacked the constitutional authority to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and her colleague Alvaro Bedoya, who had challenged the dismissal in court. While Bedoya resigned in June amid the legal battle, Slaughter now returns to her position with four years remaining in her term.
A Landmark Legal Decision
The judge cited decades of legal precedent, including the landmark 1935 Supreme Court decision Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which limited presidential power to dismiss leaders of independent agencies without cause.
“The law is clear,” Slaughter said after the decision. “I look forward to getting back to work.”
Trump’s firing of the two commissioners in March drew immediate legal challenges. His justification? Their presence, he claimed, was “inconsistent with the priorities of this administration.”
But the judge emphasized that political disagreements do not justify such removals, writing that presidents cannot override the independence of regulatory bodies created by Congress, especially when that independence has been respected by 13 administrations over 90 years.
Legal and Political Repercussions
The case could set important precedent for other independent agencies such as the Federal Reserve, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission—institutions historically insulated from partisan control.
“America is already suffering from an excess of executive power,” said Amit Agarwal, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “The last thing we need is to hand vast new powers to the president over Congress’s explicit and longstanding objection.”
The Trump administration’s legal team indicated they will appeal the decision, signaling a continued fight over executive power.
FTC’s Role and Political Balance
The FTC is a critical agency tasked with enforcing consumer protections and overseeing antitrust laws. The commission traditionally includes five members: three from the president’s party and two from the opposition. Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to staggered seven-year terms, ensuring continuity and minimizing political turnover.
“The president should be able to remove someone who is actively blocking his policies,” argued DOJ attorney Emily Hall, suggesting the agency’s increased importance justifies greater presidential control.
However, during a May hearing, Judge AliKhan appeared skeptical, noting that such power would erode the foundational checks and balances built into the U.S. government.
Historical Context and Legal Precedent
The Humphrey’s Executor case, in which the Supreme Court unanimously restricted Roosevelt’s power to remove FTC commissioners, served as the bedrock of AliKhan’s decision. Although a 2020 ruling undercut some protections for other agencies, the FTC remains protected under current legal interpretation.
“That has never been the case in this country,” attorney Aaron Crowell told the court. “That’s not the law. That has never been the law.”
Political Motives and Democratic Pushback
Critics argue that Trump’s motivation for the firings was not legal but political—aimed at reshaping agencies that resist his economic or regulatory agenda. Democratic lawmakers condemned the firings as a blatant attempt to politicize independent regulators.
“This isn’t just about jobs,” said Agarwal. “It’s about the integrity of American democracy and the rule of law.”
The ruling comes amid broader concerns about executive overreach, as Trump continues to test the limits of presidential power in his second term. His administration has already faced legal scrutiny over efforts to restructure other agencies like the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Consumer Safety Commission.
With the FTC’s future independence on the line, Thursday’s ruling marks a significant reaffirmation of constitutional protections designed to prevent the White House from dominating the administrative state.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.