Trump v. Slaughter

Questions presented

SCOTUS records, cert granted 22 Sep 2025

The parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: (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.

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

The dispute was over whether the President could remove FTC Commissioners without showing a statutory cause. The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the FTC’s for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers. The Court said Article II vests the executive power in one President, who must be able to supervise and remove subordinates who exercise that power. It relied on constitutional text, early practice, the Decision of 1789, and prior cases such as Myers, while concluding that Humphrey’s Executor no longer has force and is overruled to the extent it conflicts. The Court said the FTC exercises executive power through rulemaking, enforcement, adjudication, and litigation, so its members must be removable at will.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that Congress and the President have long agreed that some agencies should operate with independence from partisan control, and that the FTC’s for-cause removal protections have been upheld for nearly a century under Humphrey’s Executor. It said the majority ignores text, history, longstanding practice, and precedent, and wrongly gives the President a power unknown even to the English Crown. The dissent warned that the Court’s new rule would disrupt the structure of the Federal Government and reduce the public’s access to impartial administration.