Supreme Court Allows Trump to Remove FTC Commissioner, Sparks Power Debate

The United States Supreme Court has granted a temporary stay allowing Trump to remove a commissioner from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This decision comes as the justices consider whether to overturn a longstanding precedent that protects federal agency members from being fired by the president without cause. The move has sparked debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies.

Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic appointee to the FTC, was initially appointed during Trump's first term and later renominated by Biden. In March, Trump sought to remove her from her position, leading to a legal battle. Lower federal courts had previously denied Trump's request to remove Slaughter during the litigation process, citing the 1935 Supreme Court decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which prohibits the president from arbitrarily dismissing FTC commissioners.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, granted Trump's request to temporarily stay the lower court's decision, effectively allowing Slaughter's removal to proceed while the case is under review. The court also agreed to hear the case formally, with oral arguments scheduled for December as per Chief Justice John Roberts' directive. The justices will deliberate on whether the precedent set by Humphrey’s Executor should be overturned and whether federal courts have the authority to prevent someone from being dismissed from their position.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan argued that agencies like the FTC are designed to be independent, with members serving staggered terms and protected from removal without cause. She criticized the majority's decision to repeatedly issue stays that effectively transfer control of these agencies to the president. Kagan's dissent was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued that the majority's actions undermine the bipartisan nature and independence of these agencies.

Kagan further noted that the majority's decision, despite congressional regulations to the contrary, allows the president to dismiss any commissioner at will, thereby undermining the independence and bipartisan nature of these agencies. The conservative majority on the Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by Trump, appears eager to overturn the Humphrey’s Executor precedent. However, until this change is formally implemented, the precedent remains in effect, preventing the majority from granting the president unlimited dismissal powers.

Kagan's dissent highlighted the misuse of the court's emergency procedures, stating that they should not be used to allow actions that violate the court's own precedents. The decision to temporarily stay the lower court's ruling has significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent regulatory agencies, potentially altering the landscape of federal governance.