SCOTUS overrules FTC “for-cause” removal limits, expands presidential control
United States Evening White House and Congress Update — On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution bars Congress from limiting the President’s power to remove FTC commissioners for “for-cause” reasons, reversing a lower-court injunction and reshaping how independent-agency leadership could be replaced.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2026 decision in Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332) strengthens presidential control over the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) by ruling that the FTC Act’s limits on commissioner removals are unconstitutional.
The Court reversed a lower-court injunction that had blocked interference with former FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter’s continued service and sent the case back (remanded) for further proceedings. In doing so, the Court also overruled Humphrey’s Executor to the extent it supported the idea that Congress can impose “for-cause” removal protections for FTC commissioners.
What the Court decided
The Court held that the FTC’s statutory “for-cause” removal provision—allowing removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office”—violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. The reasoning centers on accountability: the executive must be able to remove the officials who exercise executive authority on the President’s behalf.
Timeline in plain terms
FTC commissioners serve seven-year terms and, under the statute at issue, can be removed only for specified “for-cause” reasons. The opinion says that soon after President Trump began his second term in January 2025, he fired the FTC’s two Democratic appointees, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, without identifying a statutory cause.
Slaughter sued seeking relief to restore her to office. A district court granted summary judgment for Slaughter and issued a permanent injunction barring interference with her ability to perform her lawful duties. The Supreme Court’s decision reverses that injunction.
What changes operationally
With the FTC’s “for-cause” removal limits struck down, the practical effect is that the President can replace FTC commissioners without having to prove the statutory “inefficiency/neglect/malfeasance” grounds that had previously constrained removals.
Because the case is remanded, the next steps could include further clarification of what relief looks like after the injunction is reversed.
Who is affected right now
The immediate parties include Slaughter (the plaintiff) and the executive officials involved in the removal. More broadly, the decision is relevant to other “independent” regulators that include commissioner or board-member removal protections similar to those challenged here.
What to watch next
- Remand proceedings: courts will determine what the reversed injunction means in practice after the Supreme Court ruling.
- Follow-on challenges at other agencies: the decision’s logic is already being discussed in connection with removal disputes involving other multi-member federal regulators.
- Congressional oversight and agency design: lawmakers and courts may revisit how “independence” is structured when removal protections are at issue.
Sources
- U.S. Supreme Court opinion (Trump v. Slaughter, No. 25-332, decided June 29, 2026)
- AP News explainer/reporting on the ruling’s governance implications
Discover more from Interactive News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.