In a landmark decision on September 8, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, through an order issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, permitted President Donald Trump to remove a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), overturning lower court rulings that had reinstated the commissioner. The move marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies, reigniting debates over presidential authority and the independence of regulatory bodies. The decision has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles, with many viewing it as a direct challenge to a nearly century-old precedent that has long protected such agencies from arbitrary presidential interference.

The controversy centers on President Trump’s attempt to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter in March 2025. Slaughter, a Democratic appointee, was removed alongside another Democratic commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, in what the administration described as an effort to advance its priorities. However, Slaughter challenged the move, citing the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which stipulates that commissioners can only be removed for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Lower courts, including a federal judge in Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sided with Slaughter, reinstating her based on the 1935 Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor. That ruling, stemming from a similar dispute involving the FTC, established that presidents cannot fire independent agency members without cause, a decision that paved the way for the modern era of independent federal agencies.

The Trump administration, however, argued that such restrictions unlawfully limit the president’s constitutional authority to control the executive branch, as outlined in Article II of the Constitution. In an emergency appeal filed on September 4, 2025, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that the FTC’s expanded powers since 1935 render the Humphrey’s Executor precedent outdated. Sauer argued that the “modern FTC” exercises far greater authority than it did nearly a century ago, justifying broader presidential discretion over its leadership. While Sauer suggested the Court could sidestep overturning Humphrey’s Executor by focusing on the FTC’s evolved role, he also noted that the precedent could be overruled if necessary.

Chief Justice Roberts’ order on September 8 temporarily blocked the lower courts’ rulings, allowing Slaughter’s removal to proceed while her lawsuit continues. The brief order, issued on the Court’s emergency docket, did not provide a definitive ruling on the merits but signaled the conservative majority’s skepticism toward the protections afforded to independent agencies. This aligns with recent Supreme Court decisions that have chipped away at Humphrey’s Executor, including rulings in 2020 and 2025 that allowed Trump to remove members of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, National Labor Relations Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission without cause. However, the Court has suggested limitations on presidential power over certain agencies, such as the Federal Reserve, hinting at a nuanced approach to the issue.

The decision has sparked intense reactions across the political spectrum. Supporters of the administration argue that it reinforces the president’s rightful authority to shape federal policy by ensuring agencies align with his agenda. Critics, however, warn that it undermines the independence of agencies designed to operate free from political pressure. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a sharp dissent in a related case, accusing the Court’s majority of dismantling decades of precedent without sufficient justification. “This Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,” Kagan wrote, describing the trend as a “permanent transfer of authority” from one branch to another.

The FTC, tasked with enforcing consumer protection and antitrust laws, typically consists of five commissioners, with no more than three from the same political party, ensuring bipartisan balance. Slaughter’s removal leaves the agency with a Republican majority, raising concerns among consumer advocates about its ability to maintain impartiality. Posts on X reflect the polarized sentiment, with some users praising the decision as a victory for executive power, while others decry it as an attack on democratic checks and balances. One user wrote, “The Supreme Court just handed Trump a blank check to politicize federal agencies,” while another countered, “Presidents should control who runs their government. This is common sense.”

As Slaughter’s lawsuit progresses, with her legal team expected to respond to the administration’s arguments by mid-September, the case could force the Supreme Court to confront Humphrey’s Executor head-on. Legal scholars speculate that a definitive ruling could reshape the structure of the administrative state, potentially giving presidents unprecedented control over agencies like the FTC, FCC, and others. For now, the decision underscores the ongoing tension between presidential power and agency independence, with far-reaching implications for how the federal government operates. As the nation watches this legal battle unfold, the “Philly’s Karen” incident at a baseball game pales in comparison to this high-stakes constitutional showdown.