The fate of independent federal agencies is set for a pivotal moment as the Supreme Court convenes on Monday to deliberate on President Trump’s efforts to dismiss a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member without just cause. This case could redefine the principles established over the past 90 years that have allowed Congress to shield FTC commissioners and similar agency officials from arbitrary removal by the executive branch.

The controversy arose from President Trump’s attempt to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat appointed to the FTC in 2018. The president justified his decision by claiming Slaughter’s actions were “inconsistent” with the administration’s policies. This move is part of a broader pattern, with Trump having dismissed approximately a dozen officials after regaining the presidency, despite existing federal laws that protect them from being fired without cause. Many of these dismissed officials have subsequently pursued legal action.

Central to this legal battle is the Supreme Court’s landmark 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. This ruling established the removal protections that are currently at risk, as it upheld the principle that certain federal agency members could only be dismissed for specific reasons, thereby safeguarding their independence from political pressures.

Should Trump prevail in this case, it could significantly alter the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies, potentially undermining the longstanding precedent that ensures these bodies can operate free from executive interference.

At stake is the Supreme Court’s 1935 holding in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the removal protections in place today. 

Lower courts have largely ruled against Trump, finding they are still bound by that 90-year-old decision. But now that the fight has reached the Supreme Court, the only bench with authority to overturn its own precedents, Trump administration lawyers have held out hope that the conservative majority will do so. 

Several of those justices have expressed skepticism about the precedent as they’ve picked apart the so-called “administrative state” in several rulings in recent years. 

“The decision in Humphrey’s Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people,” Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote in a 2020 opinion. 

Like those justices, Trump argues the removal protections infringe the separation of powers by preventing him from exercising his constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch.  

“The Court should repudiate anything that remains of Humphrey’s Executor and ensure that the President, not multimember agency heads, controls the executive power that Article II vests in him alone,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court filings. 

Sauer himself will argue Monday’s case on behalf of the government, signaling the administration views the case as highly significant. 

Conservative and libertarian interests are supporting the administration, including the National Civil Liberties Alliance, the Cato Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The Chamber of Commerce also filed a brief supporting Trump. 

Trump first appointed Slaughter to a Democratic seat on the FTC in 2018. Former President Biden renominated her, and her new term was set to expire in 2029. But In March, Trump fired Slaughter. 

In setting up the FTC, Congress prevented the president from firing commissioners except for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” 

Trump does not purport to have one of those valid causes to terminate Slaughter. Instead, the White House told Slaughter her continued service “is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities” without further explanation. 

Amit Agarwal, who worked under Attorney General Pam Bondi as Florida’s former solicitor general, will represent Slaughter at the Supreme Court Monday. Agarwal is an attorney at Protect Democracy, an anti-authoritarian group that has regularly challenged Trump in court. 

“They seek to vindicate the principle of democratic political accountability by asking unelected and politically unaccountable courts to jettison longstanding laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives,” Agarwal wrote of the government’s position.  

“And they demand that this Court respond to the growing power of the Executive Branch by transferring to the Presidency vast new powers that Congress and prior Presidents, working together, chose not to vest in the President alone,” Agarwal continued. 

Slaughter’s fight is supported by outside briefs filed by the AFL-CIO, various former independent agency heads, left-leaning consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, 22 Democratic state attorneys general and roughly 200 Democratic members of Congress. 

Her Supreme Court case precedes another pivotal case addressing the independence owed to agencies traditionally kept an arm’s length from the White House.  

In January, the justices will consider Federal Reserve board of governors member Lisa Cook’s challenge to Trump’s attempt to fire her over mortgage fraud allegations, which she denies.  

The Supreme Court has so far taken care to shield the Fed from the anticipated fate of other independent agency protections, but the arguments in Cook’s case could illuminate where those lines are drawn.