NewsGlobalTrump Challenges 90-Year Precedent, Asks Supreme Court to Remove Democrat FTC CommissionerTrump Challenges 90-Year Precedent, Asks Supreme Court to Remove Democrat FTC Commissioner
President Trump has petitioned the US Supreme Court to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the last Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission. This challenge targets the 1935 Humphrey's Executor ruling, which protects certain officials from presidential removal. Slaughter previously sued to keep her position, winning a federal judge's support in July. The case is part of a broader trend in Trump's approach to executive power, with potential to reshape the landscape of independent federal agencies. If successful, it could increase presidential control over these agencies and alter their functioning.
*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
In a move that could reshape the landscape of independent federal agencies, President Donald Trump has petitioned the US Supreme Court to remove Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the sole remaining Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This legal challenge strikes at the heart of a long-standing precedent that has protected certain high-ranking officials from presidential removal for nearly a century.
The Case at Hand
Trump's petition directly challenges the 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey's Executor, which established the principle that Congress could shield specific high-ranking officials from presidential removal. This precedent has been a cornerstone in maintaining the independence of various federal agencies from executive interference.
Recent Developments
The current case stems from Trump's attempt to remove Slaughter from her position in March. However, Slaughter successfully sued to retain her position, arguing that the FTC Act only permits removal for specific causes such as inefficiency or neglect of duty. A federal judge ruled in her favor in July, leaving her status at the FTC in a state of uncertainty.
Broader Implications
This case is not isolated but part of a broader trend in the Trump administration's approach to executive power. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously sided with Trump in similar cases, allowing for the removal of agency heads from:
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
- National Labor Relations Board
- Merit Systems Protection Board
- Consumer Product Safety Commission
Legal Arguments
The Trump administration contends that lower courts have defied the Supreme Court's earlier rulings on presidential removal powers. This argument sets the stage for a potentially landmark decision that could significantly alter the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies.
What's at Stake
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for the structure and independence of federal agencies. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump, it could potentially:
- Increase presidential control over independent agencies
- Alter the functioning and decision-making processes of these agencies
- Impact the stability and continuity of agency leadership across administrations
As this case moves forward, it will be closely watched by legal experts, policymakers, and those interested in the balance of power within the federal government. The Supreme Court's decision could potentially redefine the relationship between the executive branch and independent agencies for generations to come.
15
