Supreme Court Holds FTC’s For-Cause Removal Protections Violate the Constitution

In Trump v. Slaughter, 609 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FCC) for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. In so ruling, the majority expressly overruled its 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had served as a restraint on presidential power.

Facts of the Case

The FTC consists of five Commissioners, no more than three of whom may come from any one political party. Each commissioner is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners serve for seven years and may be removed by the President only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Soon after President Trump began his second term in January 2025, he fired the FTC’s two Democratic appointees, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya. He did not identify a cause under the statute. He instead told them their “continued service on the FTC [was] inconsistent with [his] Administration’s priorities” and that they were removed “pursuant to [his] authority under Article II of the Constitution.”

Slaughter subsequently filed suit against the President and other executive officials, seeking relief to restore her to office. She argued that her removal was ultra vires, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated the Constitution. The District Court granted Slaughter’s motion for summary judgment. It acknowledged that Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, generally permits the President to remove executive officers at will, but explained that Humphrey’s Executor carved out an exception for the FTC. The court declared the President’s “purported removal” ultra vires and issued a permanent injunction barring interference “with Ms. Slaughter’s right to perform her lawful duties.”

A divided Court of Appeals denied the Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Thereafter, the Supreme Court stayed the District Court’s order and granted certiorari before judgment.

Majority Decision

The Supreme Court reversed by a vote of 6-3, holding that FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote on behalf of the majority, which included Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

In reaching its decision, the majority relied heavily on the text, structure, and history of Article II. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that Article II intentionally established a “unity” of executive power in a single person—the President. He went on to explain that the power to remove at will was a necessary corollary of the Constitution’s design.

“The President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President wouldpreferto work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom hecannotwork,” Roberts wrote. “Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

The Supreme Court also addressed Humphrey’s Executor, which had previously upheld the statute. “If anything moreis left ofHumphrey‘s,” it is overruled, Chief Justice Roberts declared. According to the majority, Humphrey’s“conclusion that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time.”

The Court went on to find that because the FTC exercises significant executive authority, the FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers. In support, it cited that the FTC enforces and administers some 80 statutes covering “almost every facet of the Nation’s economy,” has the power to promulgate substantive rules carrying the force of law, investigates businesses and enforce statutes through in-house adjudications, and files civil suits on behalf of the United States in federal court. “The FTC unquestionably exercises executive power and must therefore be controlled by the Chief Executive,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Finally, the Court emphasized what it was not deciding. Notably, Chief Justice Roberts stated that it was not deciding thepermissibility ofstatutory removal protectionfor other officials, including members of the Federal Reserve.

Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a lengthy dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before,” she 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. I respectfully dissent.”