Supreme Court Puts FTC Independence on the Line
On September 22, the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to remove Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, despite the Federal Trade Commission Act’s explicit protections against at-will removal. The vote was 6–3, with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissenting. Full arguments are set for December, but the Court has already signaled it is ready to reconsider Humphrey’s Executor—the 1935 case that established independence for multi-member commissions like the FTC.
Why Humphrey’s Executor Still Matters
For nearly a century, Humphrey’s Executor has stood for the principle that Congress can insulate certain agencies from political turnover by limiting removal to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.” This structure protects commissions that mix regulatory, legislative, and adjudicative functions, such as the FTC, NLRB, MSPB, and CPSC. Unlike a single-director agency, these commissions were deliberately designed to be bipartisan and expert-driven.
The Stakes for Federal Employees
If the Court overturns Humphrey’s, presidents would gain at-will removal authority over commissioners across multiple independent agencies. That shift would not just affect political appointees—it would ripple down to the career workforce. The loss of continuity at the top means shifting priorities, legal uncertainty, and the risk that professional staff are judged by their alignment with political preferences rather than by expertise or merit. For federal employees, that erodes due process and predictability in how cases, enforcement actions, and adjudications unfold.
Why Independence Protects the Public Too
Agency independence is not just a bureaucratic design choice; it’s a safeguard for the public. Businesses, workers, and consumers need to know the rules of the road will not be rewritten overnight with every election. Stability in leadership helps ensure decisions are grounded in law and facts rather than political loyalty. Removing those guardrails risks creating the perception—and the reality—that enforcement is partisan, weakening public trust in institutions designed to protect economic fairness and workplace rights.
The Dissent’s Warning
Justice Kagan’s dissent stressed that until the Court explicitly overturns Humphrey’s Executor, it remains binding law. Allowing removals on the emergency docket effectively erases precedent without the deliberation that separation-of-powers questions demand. She warned this approach hands “full control” of independent commissions to the President before the merits are even argued, destabilizing Congress’s carefully drawn balance of power.
A Moment to Watch Closely
For federal employees, this case is more than constitutional theory—it’s about whether agencies meant to operate outside day-to-day politics will remain insulated. The Court’s December arguments could redefine the balance of independence and executive control across the federal government.
Legal Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. While I am a federal employment attorney, this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every situation is unique, and legal outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances.