Supreme Court Backs Trump Firing FTC Commissioner in 6-3 Ruling

The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that President Donald Trump has the authority to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission for policy reasons, dismantling nine decades of legal precedent that had shielded independent agency officials from at-will presidential dismissal and marking one of the most significant expansions of executive power in modern American history.

Roberts Writes for the Majority, Declares Removal Protections Unconstitutional

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion, ruling that congressional protections requiring “for cause” justification before a president could remove officials at more than two dozen independent federal agencies violated the constitutional separation of powers.

“What text, history, and structure settle, our precedent confirms — the President may remove his subordinates at will,” Roberts wrote.

The decision effectively ends the bipartisan, independent character of regulatory agencies that have overseen vast areas of American life since the New Deal era, including stock trading, transportation, election campaigns, consumer product safety, and broadcast licensing. It does not abolish the agencies themselves but allows a president to fill them exclusively with members of one party, giving the White House direct control over their operations and direction.

The ruling overturns the unanimous 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had previously established that FTC commissioners could only be dismissed for cause. Roberts had signaled the court’s direction during oral arguments in December, stating bluntly that the earlier precedent had become “just a dried husk of whatever people used to think it was.”

Trump Calls It “One of the Most Important” Rulings Ever

President Trump celebrated the decision on his social media platform, calling it a “BIG WIN” and “one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers.” The case centered on Trump’s dismissal of FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, on policy grounds.

The ruling hands Trump and all future presidents substantially greater authority over the federal regulatory apparatus — a long-sought goal of conservatives who have argued that unelected agency officials wielded too much power with insufficient accountability to elected leadership.

Sotomayor Leads Sharp Dissent, Warns of Unchecked Executive Power

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a forceful dissent, accusing the majority of endorsing a theory of executive dominance that the nation’s founders never envisioned.

“The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before,” Sotomayor wrote. “It is a power, however, that neither the People, nor Congress, nor the Constitution bestowed upon him. In granting the President this unbridled authority, the Court upends its precedent, misconstrues our history, and sheds any pretense of judicial modesty.”

Ruling Reshapes Decades of Regulatory Independence

Since the 1930s, independent agencies have operated under a bipartisan model intended to insulate regulatory decisions from political pressure. The FTC, Federal Election Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and dozens of similar bodies have long been led by subject-matter experts drawn from both parties, serving fixed terms with removal protections designed to ensure continuity and impartiality.

Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on the Trump FTC commissioner firing dismantles that model, allowing the executive branch to install loyalists across the regulatory landscape. For liberals, the decision represents a fundamental blow to a system of governance built on checks against unchecked presidential authority. For conservatives, it restores what they see as proper democratic accountability over a sprawling and powerful bureaucracy.

The Supreme Court separately blocked Trump, at least temporarily, from removing Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook in a related case, signaling that the boundaries of the new ruling may still be tested in the courts.