Trump v. Slaughter

Trump v. Slaughter is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of statutory removal protections for the Federal Trade Commission—previously upheld in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935)—and whether a federal court may prevent removal from public office.

Trump v. Slaughter
Supreme Court of the United States
Full case name	Donald J. Trump, et al. v. Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, et al.
Docket no.	25-332
Case history
Prior	Motion for Summary Judgment granted. Rebecca Slaughter et al v. Donald Trump et al, No. 1:25-cv-00909 (D.D.C) July 17, 2025. stay pending appeal denied (D.C Cir) Sep 2, 2025.
Questions presented
1. 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. 2. Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.

Background

For-cause removal litigation at the Supreme Court addresses the constitutional boundaries of Congress's authority to limit the President's power to remove executive officers. In Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the Court upheld statutory provisions restricting presidential removal of Federal Trade Commissioners to instances of "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office". Distinguishing Myers v. United States (1926), which invalidated limits on removal of a post performing exclusively executive functions, the Court emphasized that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) exercised quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial duties. On this basis, the Court concluded that Congress could provide tenure protections to preserve the independence of such bodies.^[1]

Subsequent cases have developed and qualified this framework. In Morrison v. Olson (1988), the Court sustained the independent counsel statute, holding that for-cause removal restrictions for a special prosecutor did not impermissibly interfere with the President's constitutional role. In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (2010), however, the Court invalidated a statutory scheme that subjected Board members to two layers of for-cause protection, finding that such "double insulation" unduly limited presidential oversight. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Court further limited Humphrey's Executor, holding that Congress may not insulate single-director independent agencies with significant executive authority from presidential removal at will. Collins v. Yellen (2021) extended this reasoning to the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

The Court's decisions delineate a line between permissible and impermissible removal restrictions. While Humphrey's Executor continues to authorize for-cause protections for members of multimember commissions exercising adjudicatory or regulatory functions, more recent decisions emphasize that restrictions on principal officers who wield substantial executive power are inconsistent with constitutional separation of powers.

Lower court history

In March 2025, president Donald Trump fired two members of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya appointed by Democratic politicians.^[2] On March 27, Slaughter and Bedoya sued Trump, alleging that their removals were unlawful.^[3] On July 17, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held that the attempt to remove Slaughter was unlawful. The court reinstated her to her position and enjoined the government from interfering with her ability to perform her duties. The court emphasized that the removal protections for FTC Commissioners (for cause only) remain valid under current Supreme Court doctrine. The government sought stays of that order. Initially, the District Court denied emergency stay requests. Then, on September 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a request by the Department of Justice to block Slaughter from returning to work. The appeals court noted that the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits because Supreme Court precedent is binding and directly applicable.

Supreme Court

The Trump administration requested a stay of the reinstatement order on September 4, 2025. On September 8, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administrative stay while referring the request to the full court.^[4] On September 22, the Supreme Court granted the stay, issued certiorari before judgment, and set oral arguments for December.^[5][6]

See also

• Appointments Clause
• Civil service independence
• Independent agencies of the United States federal government
• Legal affairs of the second Trump presidency
• Officer of the United States
• Trump v. Cook (2025)
• Unitary executive theory