SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gwynne wilcox
Supreme Court to Weigh 90-Year-Old Precedent and Let Trump Fire FTC Commissioner
"Rest in peace to the presidency, and long live the king," quipped one attorney.
Sep 22, 2025
As US President Donald Trump faces mounting accusations of authoritarian conduct, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority on Monday empowered him to proceed with firing a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission and agreed to review a 90-year-old precedent that restricts executive power over independent agencies such as the FTC.
Trump in March fired the FTC's two Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, without cause. Slaughter fought back, and US District Judge Loren AliKhan allowed her to return to work while the case continued. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld that decision, but it was halted Monday by the nation's top court.
Monday's decision was unsigned, though the three liberals collectively dissented, led by Justice Elena Kagan. In addition to letting Trump move forward with ousting Slaughter, the majority agreed to reconsider the precedent established with Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 case that centered on whether the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interfered with the executive power of the president.
In Humphrey's Executor, the high court found that Congress' removal protections for FTC members did not violate the separation of powers. Along with revisiting the precedent established by that landmark decision in December, the justices plan to weigh whether a federal court may prevent a person's removal from public office.
The court's stay allowing Trump to fire Slaughter was granted as part of the court's emergency process, or shadow docket. In a short but scathing dissent, Kagan noted that it is part of a recent trend: "Earlier this year, the same majority, by the same mechanism, permitted the president to fire without cause members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merits Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission."
"I dissented from the majority's prior stay orders, and today do so again. Under existing law, what Congress said goes—as this court unanimously decided nearly a century ago," she wrote. In Humphrey's Executor, Kagan continued, "Congress, we held, may restrict the president's power to remove members of the FTC, as well as other agencies performing 'quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial' functions, without violating the Constitution."
"So the president cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC commissioner without any reason. To reach a different result requires reversing the rule stated in Humphrey's: It entails overriding rather than accepting Congress' judgment about agency design," she argued. "The majority may be raring to take that action, as its grant of certiorari before judgment suggests. But until the deed is done, Humphrey's controls, and prevents the majority from giving the president the unlimited removal power Congress denied him."
More broadly, Kagan declared that "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."
Kagan, of course, is correct that the Supreme Court will soon overturn Humphrey's Executor and allow the president to fire leaders of any independent agency (other than the Fed—maybe?!). She's also right to bemoan the fact that SCOTUS effectively overruled Humphrey's on the shadow docket already.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) September 22, 2025 at 3:20 PM
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the anti-monopoly think tank Open Markets Institute, slammed the court in a Monday statement.
"Today, in a one-paragraph order, the Supreme Court authorized President Trump's illegal firing of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and his ongoing destruction of the independent, bipartisan Federal Trade Commission," Vaheesan said.
"As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, Commissioner Slaughter was fired without cause and is clearly entitled to her position under the FTC Act and controlling Supreme Court precedent," he added. "The court could override Congress' decision to create an independent FTC on specious constitutional grounds but until it takes that step Commissioner Slaughter has a right to her job.”
While the justices agreed to take Slaughter's case, they turned away petitions from two ousted Democratic appointees referenced by Kagan: Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board. According to SCOTUSblog: "The court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to take up Harris' and Wilcox's cases at this time. They will continue to move forward in the lower courts."
The New York Times noted that "the justices are separately considering the Trump administration’s request to remove Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve governor. The Supreme Court has yet to act, but has suggested that the central bank may be insulated from presidential meddling under the law."
However, as Law Dork's Chris Geidner highlighted on social media, the second question the justices will consider in the Slaughter case, regarding courts preventing removals from public office, "would have implications even for the 'Fed carveout' exception that the court suggested exists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Legislating From the Bench,' Supreme Court Greenlights Trump Firing of Labor Regulators
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that the president believes the 90-year precedent "should be either overruled or confined... And he has chosen to act on that belief—really, to take the law into his own hands."
May 22, 2025
In a decision that alarmed legal experts, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the reinstatement of two labor regulators fired by President Donald Trump in apparent violation of federal law intended to prevent such ousters for political reasons.
The Trump administration asked the high court—which has a right-wing supermajority—to block orders from the District Court for the District of Columbia against the president's removal of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Member Cathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Member Gwynne Wilcox.
An unsigned two-page opinion—from which the three liberals dissented—provides the Trump administration that relief, but the majority declined to take up the cases more fully, meaning they will play out U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Hill noted that the move "leaves both agencies without a quorum required to conduct certain business in the meantime."
In her fiery dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that "for 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States... has stood as a precedent of this court. And not just any precedent. Humphrey's undergirds a significant feature of American governance: bipartisan administrative bodies carrying out expertise-based functions with a measure of independence from presidential control."
While the MSPB and NLRB are the focus of this case, "there are many others," she continued. "The current president believes that Humphrey's should be either overruled or confined... And he has chosen to act on that belief—really, to take the law into his own hands."
"Our Humphrey's decision remains good law, and it forecloses both the president's firings and the court's decision to award emergency relief," Kagan added. "Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law."
Big, bad legal news from "the shadow docket." 6-3 overturning the stay in Wilcox, the NLRB case. Less than 2 pages of assertions that have been proven historically incorrect. A preview of expanding presidential power and allowing the Trump removals: www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...
[image or embed]
— Jed H. Shugerman (@jedshug.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern similarly stressed the significance of Thursday's development on social media, writing that "the Supreme Court just effectively overruled 90 years of precedent on the shadow docket, greenlighting Trump's firing of multimember agency leaders while their cases are pending—despite Congress' effort to protect them against removal. A huge decision."
"The Supreme Court goes out of its way to say that its order today does NOT allow Trump to remove members of the Federal Reserve because it is 'uniquely structured' and has a 'distinct history tradition,'" he noted. "I do not think those distinctions hold water."
The right-wing justices' opinion states that "Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris contend that arguments in this case necessarily implicate the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections for members of the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee."
"We disagree," the court's majority said. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States."
Multiple other court watchers echoed Stern's take on social media.
They’re not only overturning precedent on the shadow docket, but ~deciding~ other cases in a non-binding (dicta) way to give cover for these actions. Today, this unnamed group of conservative justices, not even claiming this is “per curiam,” say that the Federal Reserve is different. Sure.
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) May 22, 2025 at 5:12 PM
"I don't mean to be a caricature, but this just isn't law. The Supreme Court is always making policy. But this is beyond," said Noah Rosenblum, a New York University associate law professor law, summarizing the decision. "'This dicta in an emergency order will reassure the markets but just, uh, trust us on the law here, OK, no we're not overruling Humphrey's yet, and when we do we'll spare the Fed.'"
Christine Kexel Chabot, a Marquette University associate law professor law, said: "The court is legislating from the bench: It has eliminated removal restrictions it finds unimportant while keeping those it finds too consequential to kill (the Fed). Article II provides an undifferentiated grant of 'the executive power,' not one that applies to the NLRB and excepts the Fed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Saga of Fired NLRB Member, Who Was Just Reinstated Again, Appears Headed to Supreme Court
If he prevails at the Supreme Court, U.S. President Donald Trump "could gain extraordinary powers to investigate and penalize private businesses and individuals, tilt elections," and more, one outlet noted.
Apr 07, 2025
The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday issued a divided ruling that reinstated two members of labor-focused independent agencies whom the Trump administration had sought to remove. The ruling is likely not the end of the legal saga and the case appears headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The federal appeals court voted 7-4 to reverse an earlier decision by a three-member panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld the Trump administration's dismissal of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris.
Since Trump's return to the White House, Harris and Wilcox have been repeatedly removed and reinstated following contradictory rulings, according to The Guardian.
Monday's ruling was split along partisan lines, with the four dissenting judges all appointed to the court by Republican administrations, per The Guardian.
Wilcox was first appointed to the NLRB, which safeguards private sector workers' rights to organize, in 2021 by then-President Joe Biden and was re-confirmed for a five-year term by the Senate in 2023. Wilcox's removal meant the body did not have a quorum, because it needs three members to have a quorum. It once again has a quorum and can issue decisions.
As a member and former chair of the MSPB, Harris helped lead an agency that reviews federal employee firings, suspensions, and whistleblower claims.
According to the outlet Democracy Docket, the court ruled Monday that the administration's dismissal of Wilcox and Harris ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. U.S., a 1935 case that upheld removal restrictions for government officials on multimember adjudicatory boards.
"Trump's Department of Justice said it believes congressional limitations on the president's removal power are unconstitutional and that it will urge the Supreme Court to overturn Humphrey's Executor," Democracy Docket reported. "If the Supreme Court ultimately grants Trump the ability to fire members of independent bodies, he could gain extraordinary powers to investigate and penalize private businesses and individuals, tilt elections, and use monetary policy for political purposes."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular