•
A landmark constitutional case before the Supreme Court challenges removal protections for FTC commissioners, potentially overturning 90 years of precedent and reshaping dozens of federal agencies.
Trump v. Slaughter is a landmark federal constitutional case currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court that challenges the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission, potentially overturning the 1935 precedent established in Humphrey's Executor v. United States.
The case raises a fundamental question about the structure of the federal government: whether the President has absolute authority to remove members of independent federal agencies without cause. A ruling in the government's favor could reshape the operation of dozens of regulatory agencies.
Decided. The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 29, 2026, No. 25-332. By a vote of 6 to 3, the Court held that the Federal Trade Commission Act's for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional, and it overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court, holding that statutory restrictions on the President's power to remove FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers and the unity of the executive branch. The case was argued on December 8, 2025. The opinion is on supremecourt.gov, and firm analyses from Venable and Ogletree walk through the consequences.
The sections below describe the case as it was briefed. Read them as background to that holding.
| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Trump v. Slaughter |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Docket No. | No. 25A264 |
| Legal Issue | Whether statutory removal protections for FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers |
| Precedent at Stake | Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935) |
| Status | Argued December 8, 2025; awaiting decision |
The central legal question is whether the Constitution forbids Congress from protecting the leaders of independent agencies like the FTC from at-will presidential removal.
Since the Supreme Court's 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the conventional framework has permitted Congress to establish agencies whose leaders can only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." This structure has governed agencies including the FTC, SEC, EEOC, NLRB, Federal Reserve, and numerous other regulatory bodies for nearly a century.
The Trump administration argues that Humphrey's Executor should be overruled, asserting that the for-cause removal restrictions violate the President's constitutional authority over the executive branch. The case also raises a secondary question: whether federal courts have the power to order reinstatement of an improperly removed official, or whether back pay is the only available remedy.
The Solicitor General has argued that the FTC's removal protections are unconstitutional because they interfere with the President's ability to oversee and control the executive branch. The government characterizes independent agencies as a "headless fourth branch" of government that operates without democratic accountability.
If accepted, this position would grant the President the authority to remove the leaders of virtually every independent regulatory agency at will, fundamentally altering the relationship between the executive branch and the agencies that regulate the economy, financial markets, labor relations, and communications.
Commissioner Slaughter contends that her removal in March 2025 was unlawful under both the FTC Act and binding Supreme Court precedent. She argues that Humphrey's Executor has been the foundation of the administrative state for 90 years and that nearly 150 years of historical practice confirms Congress's authority to establish removal protections for agency leaders.
A district court agreed with Slaughter in July 2025, ordering her reinstatement. The Supreme Court subsequently stayed that order and took the case on an expedited basis.
The outcome could be one of the most consequential structural rulings the Supreme Court has issued in decades. If the Court overturns or significantly weakens Humphrey's Executor, the President would gain direct control over agencies that Congress designed to be insulated from political pressure.
The agencies most directly affected include the EEOC, NLRB, SEC, FCC, Federal Reserve, and Consumer Product Safety Commission. A ruling for the government could also affect ongoing litigation involving the removal of officials from other independent agencies.
Oral arguments were held on December 8, 2025. Court observers noted that the conservative majority appeared skeptical of Humphrey's Executor, with Chief Justice Roberts describing the precedent as "a dry husk." Liberal justices raised concerns about the concentration of executive power.
What is Trump v. Slaughter about? The case challenges whether Congress can protect the leaders of independent agencies like the FTC from at-will presidential removal. The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935).
Why is this case important for federal practitioners? A ruling for the government could restructure the relationship between the President and dozens of independent regulatory agencies, affecting the EEOC, NLRB, SEC, FCC, Federal Reserve, and others.
When is the decision expected? The decision is expected by the end of the Supreme Court's current term in late June or early July 2026.
Humphrey's Executor held in 1935 that Congress could protect FTC commissioners from at-will removal because they exercised quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial power. That reasoning is gone.
The immediate effect is that FTC commissioners serve at the President's pleasure. The larger effect runs to every multi-member body whose organic statute contains a similar clause. The design of the modern administrative state, with agencies deliberately insulated from a change in administration, rests on the proposition the Court just rejected.
Two questions the opinion does not resolve. Whether the Federal Reserve's structure is distinguishable, which the Court has previously suggested in dicta and which markets care about a great deal. And what happens to actions already taken by commissioners whose removal was contested.
The litigation that matters now is in the district courts, where removed officials, regulated parties, and agencies will test the boundaries of the holding.
Pull the current filings here: removal power litigation. Rulings in this area arrive as emergency applications and stay orders, so case alerts are the practical way to keep up.
For the same term's decision on the Fourteenth Amendment, read Trump v. Barbara. For a statutory rather than constitutional limit on a cabinet secretary, see National TPS Alliance v. Noem. And for a court finding that the executive branch used an investigative tool for an improper purpose, see the Federal Reserve subpoena fight.