Trump Asks High Court to Uphold Slaughter's FTC Firing Ahead of Dec. 8 Hearing
The FTC’s statutory removal protections are unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor doesn’t apply to a modern FTC exercising substantial executive power, DOJ argued Monday before the high court.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Privacy Daily provides accurate coverage of newsworthy developments in data protection legislation, regulation, litigation, and enforcement for privacy professionals responsible for ensuring effective organizational data privacy compliance.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument in Trump v. Slaughter (25-332) on Dec. 8. President Donald Trump in March fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya. Bedoya was removed from the case after his resignation from the agency (see 2507180039). The Slaughter decision will have implications for Trump’s firings of Democratic officials across the government.
DOJ filed on behalf of Trump saying the Humphrey's decision rested on the idea that the 1935 FTC “merely assisted Congress and the courts in the performance of their functions.” DOJ argued the Constitution vests the president with “entire executive power” and Congress can’t restrict it.
More than 200 House Democrats, including House Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone, D-N.J., and House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., argued in favor of Slaughter’s reinstatement. Statutes granting for-cause removal protections to independent agency board members don’t conflict with the president’s Article II powers and don’t diminish the president’s ability to ensure laws are “faithfully executed,” they said.
Conditioning the president’s “removal authority on inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance when it comes to multimember boards does not transgress his Article II authority,” they wrote. They asked the court to uphold Humphrey's and to resist “arguments to limit its reach to only certain independent agencies.”
A Republican coalition of former White House attorneys, government officials, federal judges, governors and members of Congress filed a brief in support of Slaughter. Humphrey's is an “originalist decision, rooted in the separation of powers,” they said. Since the decision, Congress has given the president more, not less, control over the FTC.
A group of Democratic state attorneys general also filed in support of Slaughter. Colorado AG Phil Weiser, Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, Minnesota AG Keith Ellison and Washington AG Nicholas Brown signed a brief arguing Congress intentionally created an expert and bipartisan FTC to fulfill its consumer protection mission. They cited the FTC’s structure as promoting enforcement collaboration with states.
In addition, a bipartisan group of former FTC chairs -- Edith Ramirez, Jon Leibowitz, William Kovacic and Terry Calvani -- filed in support of Slaughter. The president asserting at-will removal power encroaches on Congress’ constitutional authority to structure the FTC as a bipartisan, multi-member agency, they said.
Public Citizen, the American Antitrust Institute, TechFreedom and Public Knowledge also all supported Slaughter.