The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a major case testing the president’s power to fire executive branch officials.
Until it hears the case, a 6-3 majority allowed President Donald Trump to move forward with firing Biden-appointed Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
The justices agreed to consider overruling a precedent that prevents the president from removing members of independent agencies like the FTC without cause. They will also weigh whether “a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law,” according to the order.
Oral arguments will be heard in December.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court agrees to consider overturning Humphrey’s Executor and limits it upheld on the president’s ability to fire certain agency officials.
For now, the majority will allow Trump to move forward with firing Biden-appointed FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.… pic.twitter.com/BM74mhl2vu
— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) September 22, 2025
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would not have allowed Trump to fire Slaughter in the meantime.
“Under existing law, what Congress said goes—as this Court unanimously decided nearly a century ago,” Kagan wrote, noting the Supreme Court rejected a presidential claim “identical to the one made in this case” when it decided Humphrey’s Executor v. United States in 1935.
“Yet the majority, stay order by stay order, has handed full control of all those agencies to the President,” she wrote. “He may now remove—so says the majority, though Congress said differently—any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all.”
This year, the Supreme Court’s majority has also allowed Trump to fire members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
In July, the Supreme Court suggested a lower court judge should have known not to block the president’s removal of CPSC members in light of a prior emergency docket decision allowing Trump to fire other officials. Though the Supreme Court’s temporary orders are “not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,” the court held at the time.
“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” Kagan wrote in the dissent joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. “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.”
This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline, and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Jack Smith, Fani Willis forced to defend Trump prosecutions in simultaneous testimonies - December 18, 2025
- Exclusive: Biden State Dept. appeared to ignore emails from would-be Trump assassin - December 16, 2025
- Trump DOJ seeks to block officials from testifying in Judge Boasberg probe - December 12, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
BPR INSIDER COMMENTS
Scroll down for non-member comments or join our insider conversations by becoming a member. We'd love to have you!
