News & Events

Trump v. Slaughter: The Supreme Court Signals a Possible Turning Point for Agency Independence

December 16, 2025

Chris S. Edwards

Ward and Smith, P.A.

The Supreme Court hears about 75 cases per “term,” which runs from the first Monday in October until (often) sometime in late June.

Most Court-watchers, lawyers, and others are familiar with the flurry of coverage that usually accompanies the Court’s opinion releases. But it’s rare that an argument gets the same level of coverage.

Enter Trump v. Slaughter. The case, argued on December 8, 2025, can be described in innocuous-enough terms. The question presented is, “Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.”

But while the case is nominally about the FTC, the case could upend decades of deeply ingrained practice, and decision-makers and in-house counsel should know what could be headed their way. A decision in the Government’s favor could bring major changes to now-independent agencies, including Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Federal Reserve, National Labor Relations Board, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Humphrey’s Executor

To understand the case, you first must understand Humphrey’s Executor, the case the United States has asked the Supreme Court to overrule.

Humphrey’s is the New Deal-era case that made modern “independent agencies” possible. In 1935, the Court unanimously upheld a provision of the Federal Trade Commission Act that allowed the President to remove FTC Commissioners only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” and held that Congress could lawfully place those kinds of limits on the removal of officials who serve on certain multimember commissions. That was a direct rebuke to President Roosevelt, who had fired Commissioner Humphrey over policy disagreements rather than any statutory “for cause” ground.

To get there, the Court contrasted officers wielding “core” executive power and those, like the FTC Commissioners, exercising “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial” functions. Addressing the latter category, the Court emphasized Congress’s intent to create a nonpartisan, expert body insulated from day-to-day political control. Because the Commission’s work was conceived as rule-like and adjudicatory rather than the direct enforcement of law, the Court concluded that unfettered presidential removal was not constitutionally required to satisfy the Constitution’s Take Care Clause.

Over time, Humphrey’s Executor became the doctrinal foundation for independent agencies, like those mentioned above. The members of those agencies enjoy fixed terms and can be removed from their posts only for cause. Those restrictions allow some of the United States’s most important agencies to remain stable through political turmoil. Working in tandem with other legislation, the removal restrictions blessed in Humphrey’s helped end, or at least significantly curtail, the spoils system that ran rampant during the Country’s earliest years.

Since John Roberts became the Chief Justice in 2005, the Supreme Court has narrowed Humphrey’s Executor, but hasn’t overruled it. Cases like Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), and Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), treat Humphrey’s as a “limited exception” to the general rule that the President must be able to remove executive officers who wield substantial enforcement power. Those decisions confine Humphrey’s to traditional multimember commissions with defined, limited functions.

Trump v. Slaughter

That is precisely why Trump v. Slaughter is so significant. The case centers on President Trump’s March 2025 removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and the constitutionality of the FTC’s for-cause removal protections. Under Humphrey’s, Slaughter is an easy case: the Commissioner wins, and the Government loses.

But after the oral argument, held on December 8, 2025, that outcome seems unlikely. Indeed, most post-argument reporting has characterized the Government as in a strong position, with several Justices questioning whether Humphrey’s Executor remains workable given the modern FTC’s powers.

The Supreme Court has already tipped its hand somewhat. Earlier this year, on September 22, 2025, the Court stayed a federal district court’s injunction compelling the Administration to permit Ms. Slaughter to return to work. Usually, the Court only enjoins a lower-court order if it believes that the order is likely wrong. At the same time, the Court took the unusual step of granting “certiorari before judgment,” allowing the case to bypass the federal appellate court that ordinarily would have had jurisdiction over the case.

Why This Matters

At a micro level, the case will be meaningful for anyone who interacts with the FTC, whether in merger review, consumer protection investigations, privacy and advertising matters, or rulemaking. If Presidents are able to remove Commissioners at will, we are likely to see faster and more pronounced policy swings between administrations. And those policy swings could come quickly, making the landscape less predictable.

On a macro level, the case goes far beyond the FTC: A decision in the Government’s favor would chance the way many independent agencies carry out their statutory duties. Companies that deal with the EEOC or NLRB will want to watch the outcome here, as it could upend those agencies’ balance. So too with companies regulated by the SEC, the Nuclear Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC.

During argument, there was even some suggestion that the case could affect so-called “Article I courts,” like the United States Court of Claims or Tax Court. The Senate does not have to consider nominations to those courts, like to “Article III courts,” such as the Supreme Court. Instead, the judges are hired. A decision for the United States wouldn’t move those courts toward the well-known Senate-confirmation model. But it likely would make Article I judges Presidential appointees, who could be relieved of their duties if the President disagrees with their rulings.

Then there’s the question of the Federal Reserve. Earlier this year, the Court suggested that the removal restrictions on Federal Reserve Governors might be constitutional: “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” That analysis appeared in an order permitting the firing of a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board, another independent agency. Such orders are neither authoritative nor precedential, so it does not finally resolve the President’s power over the Fed, even if it suggests that the Justices are reluctant to cede that important agency to the political process.

During the Slaughter argument, several Justices pressed the Government for its views on the President’s authority to fire Federal Reserve Governors, suggesting the Fed’s structure might not save it if Humphrey’s is overruled. The Court will consider that question directly in Trump v. Cook, which will be argued in January 2026.

***

Businesses who might be affected by the Court’s decision can start planning for the fallout of the Court’s decision now. But we likely won’t know the result, or the limitations on the Slaughter decision, until the end of the Term, in June 2026.

This article is not intended to give, and should not be relied upon for, legal advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. No action should be taken in reliance upon the information contained in this article without obtaining the advice of an attorney.

We are your established legal network with offices in Asheville, Greenville, Morehead City, New Bern, Raleigh, and Wilmington, NC, and Columbia, SC.