Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Trump v. Slaughter
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Trump v. Slaughter
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf
Case background
The Federal Trade Commission is a regulatory agency with vast rulemaking,
enforcement, and adjudicatory powers under more than eighty federal statutes.
Its five Commissioners serve seven-year terms and may be removed by the
President only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Shortly after beginning his second term in January 2025, President Trump fired
the FTC’s two remaining Democratic Commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro
Bedoya, without citing any statutory cause. He told them their continued
service was “inconsistent with his Administration’s priorities” and that they
were removed pursuant to his authority under Article II of the Constitution.
Slaughter filed suit seeking reinstatement, arguing her removal was ultra
vires, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated the
Constitution. The District Court for the District of Columbia granted
Slaughter’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the removal unlawful and
issuing a permanent injunction. A divided Court of Appeals denied the
Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court stayed the
District Court’s order and granted certiorari before judgment.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.
(2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
Holding
The FTC’s for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers
enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution vests the executive power in
the President and requires that he be able to remove officers who exercise
executive power on his behalf. The FTC unquestionably exercises executive
power — through substantive rulemaking, in-house enforcement adjudications,
and civil suits in federal court — and must therefore be subject to the
President’s control. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, to the extent it
stands for anything beyond the proposition that an agency exercising no
executive power may be structured independently of the President, is overruled.
Because the FTC’s activities fall well within the heartland of executive power,
the President was entitled to remove Commissioner Slaughter at will. Reversed
and remanded.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices
Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and joined by Justice Thomas as to all
but Part III-B. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor
filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Trump v. Slaughter, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-332_qn12.pdf
Case background
The Federal Trade Commission is a regulatory agency with vast rulemaking,
enforcement, and adjudicatory powers under more than eighty federal statutes.
Its five Commissioners serve seven-year terms and may be removed by the
President only “for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Shortly after beginning his second term in January 2025, President Trump fired
the FTC’s two remaining Democratic Commissioners, Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro
Bedoya, without citing any statutory cause. He told them their continued
service was “inconsistent with his Administration’s priorities” and that they
were removed pursuant to his authority under Article II of the Constitution.
Slaughter filed suit seeking reinstatement, arguing her removal was ultra
vires, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated the
Constitution. The District Court for the District of Columbia granted
Slaughter’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the removal unlawful and
issuing a permanent injunction. A divided Court of Appeals denied the
Government’s motion for a stay pending appeal. The Supreme Court stayed the
District Court’s order and granted certiorari before judgment.
Questions Presented
(1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.
(2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
Holding
The FTC’s for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers
enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution vests the executive power in
the President and requires that he be able to remove officers who exercise
executive power on his behalf. The FTC unquestionably exercises executive
power — through substantive rulemaking, in-house enforcement adjudications,
and civil suits in federal court — and must therefore be subject to the
President’s control. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, to the extent it
stands for anything beyond the proposition that an agency exercising no
executive power may be structured independently of the President, is overruled.
Because the FTC’s activities fall well within the heartland of executive power,
the President was entitled to remove Commissioner Slaughter at will. Reversed
and remanded.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices
Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and joined by Justice Thomas as to all
but Part III-B. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor
filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Trump v. Slaughter, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.