Trump v. Slaughter (FTC Commissioner Removal & Humphrey’s Executor)
Current understanding
Trump v. Slaughter presents the Supreme Court with the question whether the President may remove FTC Commissioners (here, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya) without the statutory ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance’ cause, directly testing the continued vitality of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). The practical effect for affected groups turns on whether multi-member independent commissions (FTC, SEC, FCC, NLRB, FERC, and similar bodies) retain for-cause protection or become subject to at-will presidential removal, which would reshape enforcement independence in consumer protection, antitrust, labor, communications, and financial regulation. Contested questions include whether Humphrey’s Executor should be narrowed, overruled, or preserved, and how the ruling interacts with Seila Law (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), which had already limited for-cause removal for single-director agencies.
Evidence log
- 2026-06-29 — Trump v. Cook: cross-connection with trump-v-cook: Both cases test the scope of presidential removal power over officers of independent multimember agencies and directly implicate the continuing vitality of Humphrey’s Executor; Cook extends the question to the Federal Reserve Board for the first time. (novelty: 5)
- 2026-06-29 — Trump v. Slaughter: cross-connection with federal-officer-removal-expansion: Both concern the scope of executive/presidential power over federal officers — Trump v. Slaughter addresses the President’s removal authority over independent commissioners, while the Federal Officer Removal Expansion legislation addresses removal (jurisdictional) and presidential immunity presumptions. (novelty: 5)