Supreme Court backs Trump's FTC firing in setback for Biden appointee

The Supreme Court just handed President Donald Trump a significant win by temporarily upholding his decision to fire a Biden-appointed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner.

In a 6-3 ruling on Monday, split along ideological lines, the Court supported Trump’s removal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, delaying her reinstatement and setting the stage for a blockbuster legal showdown in December.

This saga began when Trump, flexing constitutional muscle, fired Slaughter, who was appointed by President Biden, along with another Democrat-appointed commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya.

Trump's bold move shakes FTC structure

Unlike Slaughter, Bedoya resigned after his dismissal, but Slaughter chose to fight, challenging her removal in court.

The FTC Act is clear that commissioners serve seven-year terms and can only be fired for cause, such as malfeasance, not just presidential whim.

A lower court initially reinstated Slaughter, only for her to be fired and rehired in a dizzying legal ping-pong match before the case landed at the Supreme Court’s doorstep.

Legal precedent faces conservative scrutiny

On Monday, responding to an emergency request from the Trump administration, the justices hit pause on Slaughter’s return.

This means she’s sidelined from her FTC role until oral arguments unfold in December.

At the heart of this battle lies a thorny question: Can a president fire members of independent agencies like the FTC at will, or are they shielded by law?

Historic ruling under threat

The current precedent, set in 1935 by Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, says no—presidents can’t just boot FTC commissioners without good reason.

Yet, with a conservative majority on the Court, legal experts suggest this long-standing protection might be narrowed or even overturned.

Such a reversal could reshape presidential power over agencies like the FTC, labor boards, and even the SEC, giving elected leaders more direct control.

Liberal dissent warns of power shift

The three liberal justices dissented, decrying the use of the Court’s emergency docket—often called the “shadow docket”—for such a weighty decision.

Justice Elena Kagan, penning the dissent, warned, “Our emergency docket should never be used... to permit what our own precedent bars.”

While her concern for process sounds noble, isn’t it time to rethink rules that insulate unelected bureaucrats from accountability to a president elected to shake up the system?