Why the FTC Firing Case Could Reshape How Washington Works

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Supreme Court case Trump v. Slaughter asks whether the president can fire the commissioners who run the Federal Trade Commission whenever he wants, for any reason—or whether Congress can protect these officials so they can do their jobs based on law and evidence rather than political pressure. The answer will determine whether the FTC continues blocking mergers that would raise grocery prices, whether financial regulators can stand up to Wall Street, whether labor protections survive changes in administration, and whether dozens of agencies that touch your daily life operate independently or become extensions of whoever sits in the Oval Office.

The agencies at stake protect you from scams, keep your retirement savings safe, enforce your right to organize at work, and prevent companies from merging into monopolies that jack up prices.

What the FTC Does

The Federal Trade Commission got your money back when tech support scammers tricked you with fake virus warnings. When Walmart let its money transfer service become a vehicle for scams targeting older adults, the FTC sued and won. When subscription services charged you monthly fees you couldn’t cancel even after returning unopened products, the FTC forced refunds.

The FTC’s biggest impact comes through merger enforcement. When two large companies want to merge, the FTC reviews whether the deal would reduce competition and harm consumers.

These decisions are supposed to be based on law and economic evidence, not on whether the president likes them. The FTC is structured with five commissioners serving staggered seven-year terms, no more than three from the same political party—a bipartisan composition mandated by 15 U.S.C. § 41 to ensure the agency’s independence from political domination. Federal law says commissioners can only be removed “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”—not because the president disagrees with their decisions. This structure exists so that a president who’s friendly with a particular industry can’t simply fire commissioners to get mergers approved or enforcement dropped.

President Trump fired Commissioner Slaughter anyway. The email removing her didn’t claim inefficiency or neglect. It stated that allowing her to remain would be “inconsistent with [the] Administration’s priorities.” That’s what the law was designed to prevent.

The Ninety-Year Precedent Under Challenge

The legal foundation for protecting independent agency officials from at-will firing rests on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, decided in 1935. The case involved the exact same agency and the exact same statutory language at issue now.

Humphrey’s Executor remained good law from 1935 through early 2026, though it faced pressure in recent decades. The Trump administration isn’t arguing that Slaughter’s removal was legal under current law. It’s arguing that Humphrey’s Executor was “grievously wrong when decided” and should be overturned entirely. Oral arguments are scheduled for December 8, 2025. During those arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer is expected to tell the justices that “all executive power is vested in the President” and that no executive function can be constitutionally insulated from presidential control.

The Unitary Executive Theory

The Trump administration is advancing what legal scholars call the “unitary executive theory”—the idea that the Constitution grants the president sole authority over the entire executive branch and that any congressional attempt to limit that authority violates the separation of powers. Under this theory, if an official exercises “executive power,” the president must be able to fire that official at will.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which protects your retirement savings and regulates financial markets, has removal protections. So does the National Labor Relations Board, which enforces your right to organize at work. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which oversees banks and credit card companies. The Federal Communications Commission, which regulates internet service providers. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which recalls dangerous products.

If the unitary executive theory prevails, all of these protections become unconstitutional. A president could fire commissioners from any of these agencies whenever he wants, for any reason. Disagree with a merger decision? Fire the commissioners and appoint new ones who’ll approve it. Don’t like labor law enforcement? Fire the NLRB members and replace them with people who won’t pursue cases. Want weaker financial regulation? Fire SEC commissioners and install industry-friendly replacements.

The opposing view—defended by Slaughter’s attorneys and the three dissenting justices—emphasizes that the Constitution doesn’t grant the president unlimited control over all executive functions. Article II vests “the executive Power” in the president, but Congress has explicit constitutional authority to structure the executive branch, define agency functions, and determine how those agencies will be led. The president has enormous power: he nominates all commissioners, who must be Senate-confirmed. He can shape policy through appointments, control budgets through the appropriations process, and direct the agency chair. What he can’t do, under this view, is unilaterally fire officials for policy disagreements in violation of statutory protections Congress enacted.

One vision concentrates power in the president to an extent unknown in modern American government. The other maintains the system of checks and balances that has existed since the New Deal.

If the Court Rules for Trump

Legal analysts expect that within hours of a Supreme Court decision allowing at-will removal, the Trump administration would move to remove Democratic commissioners from multiple agencies and replace them with officials aligned with the administration’s preferences. The SEC, NLRB, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and others would face immediate reshaping.

For consumers, the most immediate impact would hit merger enforcement. A president hostile to merger enforcement could replace commissioners with others who would wave through consolidation. Grocery chains merge, and food prices rise. Hospital systems consolidate, and healthcare costs increase. Tech companies acquire competitors, and innovation slows.

The FTC recently attempted to ban noncompete clauses in employment contracts—provisions that lock workers into their current jobs and prevent them from taking better opportunities. A president opposed to this rule could remove commissioners and halt enforcement, leaving workers stuck in noncompetes. FTC enforcement against data privacy violations, deceptive advertising, and scams could shift priorities toward whatever industries the administration favors.

At the Securities and Exchange Commission, removal of independent commissioners could mean reduced scrutiny of risky financial practices. An SEC subject to presidential pressure might ease oversight when the president wants to claim credit for a booming stock market, even if that boom rests on dangerous practices.

The National Labor Relations Board enforces workers’ rights to organize and prevents employers from retaliating against union activity. Where Biden-appointed members pursued cases against union-busting, removal and replacement could tilt decisions in employers’ favor. Workers trying to organize would face an NLRB that changes its enforcement stance with each administration.

Each administration could rapidly reverse its predecessor’s policies. Rules issued in good faith and settled for years could be repealed overnight. Businesses would lose the predictability they need for long-term planning. Regulatory uncertainty would increase, potentially harming economic growth even as it benefits politically connected industries.

The Federal Reserve presents a special case. Congress has granted the Fed significant independence in monetary policy, and that independence has served both parties by insulating interest rate decisions from political pressure to pursue short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability. If the unitary executive theory extends to the Fed, presidents could pressure the Fed to cut rates before elections or raise them to harm a successor’s economy.

Why Congress Created Independent Agencies

Before the FTC’s creation in 1914, antitrust enforcement fell to the Department of Justice. Presidents wielded it as a political tool, vigorously prosecuting some industries while leaving others alone based on political considerations. The FTC was designed to remove antitrust enforcement from political control, placing it in the hands of expert commissioners who would apply law consistently.

After the 1929 stock market crash and the Great Depression, Congress created the Securities and Exchange Commission specifically to prevent the market manipulation and fraud that had devastated the economy. The SEC was structured as an independent agency so that financial regulation wouldn’t shift dramatically based on which party controlled the presidency. If a president could simply fire SEC commissioners who pursued aggressive enforcement against Wall Street, the problems the agency was created to address could return.

The Federal Communications Commission, created in 1934, was similarly structured to insulate communications policy from political pressure. Each of these agencies emerged in response to a specific crisis that lawmakers feared would recur if regulation became politicized.

The multi-member, bipartisan, protected structure wasn’t designed to exclude the president from influence. Rather, it was designed to ensure that agencies couldn’t be completely captured by a single president or reduced to servants of narrow political interests. The president still appoints commissioners. He still shapes policy through those appointments. He can’t fire commissioners because they make decisions he dislikes.

This structure has been tested repeatedly by presidents of both parties and has generally endured because the institutions serve functions that transcend partisanship. Consumer protection, financial regulation, labor enforcement, and competition policy are areas where both parties have at times supported strong enforcement and at times opposed it, but both have generally recognized that some insulation from politics serves the public interest.

The December 8, 2025 Oral Arguments

During the oral arguments, the justices’ questions revealed deep divisions about presidential power and the future of independent agencies. Solicitor General Sauer argued that the modern FTC exercises far more executive power than the 1935 version, making Humphrey’s Executor obsolete. “All executive power is vested in the President,” he stated, “and the President is going to have all the executive power that the constitution dictates.”

Slaughter’s attorney, Amit Agarwal, countered that nothing in the Constitution prevented Congress from structuring independent agencies and that Humphrey’s Executor involved the identical statutory language and agency structure at issue now. When Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether his argument would require case-by-case analysis of which agencies could have removal protections, Agarwal offered a straightforward answer: “let Congress decide.”

One side believes the Constitution mandates presidential control over all executive functions. The other believes Congress has authority to structure the executive branch and that the Constitution permits different arrangements for different functions.

Chief Justice John Roberts referred to Humphrey’s Executor as a “dried husk,” suggesting the precedent might not adequately reflect the modern regulatory state. The questioning indicated that at least five justices might be prepared to overturn or significantly narrow the precedent, though the scope of any such ruling remained unclear.

Executive Power Expanding Across Multiple Fronts

On February 18, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14215, asserting that all federal agencies—including those Congress established as independent—must submit significant regulatory actions to the White House for review before publication. The order explicitly lists the FTC, SEC, FCC, NLRB, and Federal Reserve as subject to this oversight.

This represents an assertion of presidential control without precedent. While previous administrations issued executive orders coordinating agency action, none went so far as to assert direct presidential control over statutorily independent agencies’ regulatory decisions. Combined with the removal power being litigated in Trump v. Slaughter, the executive order would effectively abolish the independent agency system Congress created over a century ago.

The Trump administration is testing every boundary of presidential power simultaneously. Mass removals of independent agency officials. Executive orders asserting control over independent agencies’ rulemaking. Challenges to congressional oversight. Each action pushes toward the same goal—concentrating power in the presidency to an extent that would fundamentally reshape American government.

Concrete Impact on Your Life

The agencies being fought over directly affect your economic life. The FTC’s work keeps prices lower by preventing anticompetitive mergers. The SEC’s oversight protects your retirement savings from fraud and market manipulation. The NLRB’s enforcement gives you legal recourse if your employer retaliates against you for organizing. The CFPB’s rules prevent banks from charging hidden fees on your checking account.

When these agencies operate independently, they can make difficult decisions in the public interest even when those decisions are unpopular with the president or politically powerful industries. When they become subject to at-will removal, they become vulnerable to pressure to bend enforcement toward political preferences rather than law and evidence.

Suppose a large retail chain wants to merge with its main competitor, a deal that would reduce competition and likely raise prices. Under the current system, the FTC commissioners evaluate the merger based on antitrust law and economic evidence. If they conclude the merger would harm consumers, they can block it even if the president supports it for political reasons—maybe the companies promised to create jobs in swing states, or their executives are major campaign donors.

Under a system where the president can fire commissioners at will, that independence disappears. Commissioners know that blocking a merger the president wants could cost them their jobs. The pressure to align enforcement with political preferences becomes overwhelming. More mergers get approved, industries consolidate, competition decreases, and prices rise.

Multiply that dynamic across every agency and every type of enforcement action, and you see what’s at stake. It’s about whether the government agencies that protect you from fraud, monopolies, unsafe products, and unfair labor practices can do their jobs based on law and evidence, or whether they become instruments of whoever holds political power.

Expected Timeline and Outcomes

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected by late June 2026. The Court could completely overturn Humphrey’s Executor, establishing that presidents have unlimited removal power over all executive officials. This would invalidate removal protections across the government. Alternatively, the Court could attempt a narrower holding, distinguishing the FTC from other agencies or carving out exceptions while leaving some protections intact. The Court could also affirm Humphrey’s Executor, preserving the current system.

If the Court rules for the administration, expect immediate consequences. Democratic appointees removed from independent agencies. Rapid changes to enforcement priorities at the FTC, SEC, NLRB, and others. Congressional Democrats considering legislative responses, though any such legislation would face the same constitutional challenges. Business organizations mobilizing to take advantage of reduced regulatory scrutiny. Consumer advocates and labor groups mobilizing in opposition.

If the Court rules against the administration and preserves Humphrey’s Executor, expect the Trump administration to appeal for remedies including reinstatement of removed commissioners. The administration would continue using its appointment power to reshape agencies as vacancies arise. Continued litigation over related questions about presidential power.

The decision will clarify the scope of presidential power in the modern administrative state. This question has lurked in the background of regulatory law for decades, addressed in some Supreme Court decisions but never fully resolved. The Trump administration has forced a confrontation, and the Court must now provide an answer that will shape American governance for decades.

The Fundamental Choice Before the Court

The agencies at stake touch nearly every aspect of American economic life. How much you pay for groceries. Whether your retirement savings are protected from fraud. Whether you can organize at work without retaliation. Whether companies can merge into monopolies. Whether your personal data gets sold without your knowledge. Whether dangerous products get recalled before they hurt someone.

The choice before the Court is whether these decisions will be made by expert officials insulated from political pressure, or by officials who serve at the pleasure of the president and must align their enforcement with his political preferences. One system prioritizes stability, expertise, and evidence-based policy. The other prioritizes presidential control and political responsiveness.

The current system has existed for ninety years and has generally served the country well, protecting consumers and workers while allowing presidents substantial influence through appointments and policy direction. The proposed alternative would concentrate power in the presidency to an extent unknown in modern American government, making regulatory policy subject to political shifts that make long-term planning impossible and leave ordinary Americans vulnerable to whatever industries have political influence at any given moment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Slaughter will answer a question with profound implications for American democracy: Does the Constitution permit Congress to create independent agencies that can resist presidential pressure, or must all executive power flow through the president without limitation? The answer will reshape not just how Washington works, but how much influence ordinary Americans have over the decisions that most directly affect their economic security and well-being.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.