Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Authority to Remove FTC Commissioners, Expanding Presidential Power

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling on June 29, 2026, in Trump v. Slaughter, affirming President Donald Trump’s power to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission at will. The decision overturned the 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had shielded FTC commissioners from removal except for cause, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.

The case arose from Trump’s March 2025 dismissal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee whose term was set to expire in 2029. Trump cited policy disagreements with the Biden-era commission’s direction. Lower courts initially blocked the removal, but the Supreme Court allowed it to proceed on an emergency basis in September 2025. The full ruling now establishes that statutory “for cause” protections for FTC members violate the separation of powers under Article II of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, holding that the FTC’s removal provision conflicts with the president’s constitutional authority over the executive branch. The Court embraced key elements of the unitary executive theory, which holds that the president exercises sole control over executive functions and must have the ability to supervise and remove officials carrying out those duties. The decision noted that the modern FTC wields substantial executive power in enforcement and rulemaking, distinguishing it from the more limited quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial role described in the 1935 ruling.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority on most points but filed a separate opinion on specific aspects. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence. The three liberal justices dissented, warning that the ruling could undermine the independence of expert agencies responsible for regulating finance, labor, and consumer protection. They argued that Congress intended these bodies to operate with some insulation from direct political pressure.

The ruling has immediate implications for the FTC, allowing the president to align the agency more closely with administration priorities on antitrust enforcement, consumer protection, and competition policy. It also signals broader vulnerability for similar “for cause” removal protections at other independent agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Court explicitly preserved the unique historical independence of the Federal Reserve, limiting the decision’s direct reach.

Trump had targeted multiple Democratic FTC commissioners for removal shortly after taking office, viewing their approach as inconsistent with his agenda. The administration argued that Humphrey’s Executor had become outdated and unworkable given the expansion of agency authority over decades. The decision restores greater presidential accountability over executive officials and reduces congressional ability to insulate regulatory bodies from elected leadership.

The ruling strengthens the president’s hand in reshaping federal agencies without requiring Senate confirmation for replacements in many cases. It aligns with prior Supreme Court decisions narrowing independent agency protections and reinforces the constitutional principle that the executive power is vested in a single president who must be able to direct subordinates.

Critics contend the decision risks politicizing once-independent regulators and concentrating too much authority in the White House. Supporters view it as a necessary correction that returns power to the elected president and prevents unaccountable bureaucracies from operating outside constitutional bounds.

The FTC now operates under clearer presidential oversight, enabling faster policy shifts on issues such as mergers, data privacy, and market competition. The ruling is likely to influence future challenges to removal protections across the administrative state and could prompt congressional efforts to restructure certain agencies. It marks a significant expansion of executive authority under the current administration while clarifying long-standing questions about the balance between Congress and the president in structuring the executive branch.