The Left has spent decades filling bureaucratic roles. Trump has had enough.
And now the Supreme Court handed Trump a huge win that set back Democrats for years.
SCOTUS Steps Up for Executive Accountability
In a decisive move that just goes to show the Supreme Court’s commitment to constitutional clarity, the justices on Monday upheld President Donald Trump’s authority to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, at least for now.
This 6-3 emergency order, split along ideological lines, keeps Slaughter sidelined while the Court schedules oral arguments for December—a clear signal that the high court is poised to scrutinize a dusty 90-year-old precedent that’s long hamstrung presidential oversight.
It’s a win for principled governance, affirming that the executive branch shouldn’t be bogged down by outdated insulation for agency officials.
Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority wisely granted the Trump administration’s stay request, pausing a lower court’s reinstatement order and ensuring stability as the merits unfold. Far from overreach, this reflects SCOTUS’s dedication to Article II, empowering the president to align the bureaucracy with the people’s mandate.
The roots of the dispute trace back to March, when Trump notified Slaughter and fellow Democratic appointee Alvaro Bedoya that their service clashed with his administration’s priorities—no malfeasance cited, just a straightforward exercise of executive prerogative. Bedoya resigned amid the legal fray, but Slaughter dug in, challenging her ouster under the FTC Act’s “for cause” protections.
A district court judge initially reinstated her in July, but the D.C. Circuit’s 2-1 affirmation was stayed by SCOTUS earlier this month. Through it all, Slaughter’s been in a whirlwind of firings and rehires, but the Court’s latest ruling brings welcome predictability: she’ll stay off the FTC payroll until December’s deep dive. This isn’t chaos—it’s the judiciary doing its job, preventing a revolving door that erodes trust in government.
Challenging the Humphrey’s Legacy: A Timely Reckoning
At its core, this case spotlights a fundamental tension: Does the president have the latitude to fire independent agency heads, or do statutory shields like the FTC’s seven-year terms create unaccountable fiefdoms? Slaughter leaned hard on Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, the 1935 ruling that nixed FDR’s at-will firing of an FTC commissioner, arguing it barred Trump’s move outright.
But with the modern FTC wielding far broader executive muscle—enforcing antitrust and consumer laws on a massive scale—the precedent feels like a relic from a bygone era.
Legal scholars have long buzzed that the current Court, with its textualist bent, might narrow or scrap Humphrey’s, paving the way for a more unified executive that answers to voters, not entrenched bureaucrats. Trump’s Solicitor General nailed it: the FTC’s evolution demands rethinking, as “the modern FTC exercises far more substantial powers than the 1935 FTC.”
SCOTUS’s willingness to take this up isn’t activism—it’s a thoughtful evolution, ensuring agencies like the FTC, SEC, and labor boards serve the Constitution, not congressional carve-outs from nearly a century ago.
The Dissent’s Caution—and Why the Majority’s Vision Prevails
The three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, with Kagan penning a sharp rebuke:
“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”
She speculated the majority was “raring” to reverse Humphrey’s but urged restraint on the shadow docket, insisting it overrides Congress’s design for independent watchdogs. Valid concerns about precedent’s weight, sure—but the majority’s approach shines brighter, prioritizing a robust presidency over rigid fealty to a Depression-era decision that no longer fits our complex regulatory world.
Kagan warned that allowing Trump’s firing “directly flew in the face of the precedent,” potentially upending agency independence. Yet SCOTUS’s track record this year—pausing similar reinstatements for NLRB and MSPB members—shows a consistent thread: the Court is methodically restoring balance, not upending it wholesale.
As Fox News noted, this “temporarily greenlights” Trump’s move while inching toward a landmark rethink. Slaughter’s team didn’t respond to inquiries, but the real story is SCOTUS’s steady hand: by December, we could see a ruling that fortifies executive power without chaos, making government more responsive and true to the founders’ vision. It’s a bold, necessary step forward.
