Supreme Court Rules on Presidential Power to Fire FTC Commissioner
In a significant 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court supported the Trump administration’s authority to terminate Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter at will. This verdict marks a departure from nearly a century’s worth of legal protections that prevented the termination of independent agency heads for political or policy differences.
Slaughter, appointed by Trump in his first term, was notified last year about her removal. The president reportedly asserted that allowing her to stay in her position was “contrary to the priorities of the administration.”
After the ruling, Trump took to Truth Social, celebrating what he called a “major victory” for presidential powers under Article II. He expressed his honor at being able to enact such a ruling, suggesting it was one of the most significant expansions of presidential powers ever.
In a follow-up post, Trump emphasized the ruling’s groundbreaking nature, claiming it overturned 90 years of precedent and strengthened presidential authority at a crucial moment.
The Court determined that the president possesses the right to fire Slaughter, despite the FTC’s stipulations on termination for reasons such as inefficiency or misconduct. The ruling asserted that accountability to the president is essential, and any such clauses restricting this accountability violate the principle of separation of powers.
While Senate confirmation of presidential appointees remains intact, the Court noted that neither Congress nor the courts can impose an appointee on the president that he cannot work with effectively.
Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred with the ruling but expressed concerns about its potential ramifications, pondering whether Congress would have granted such extensive powers to independent agencies had they known the president could exert such control over them.
In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that historically, Congress and the President have agreed that certain governmental roles should operate free from political partisanship.
