Will there be another major overhaul of longstanding Supreme Court precedent?
Trump v. Slaughter is a case currently pending before the United States Supreme Court that threatens to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which has served as binding precedent for nine decades. The lawsuit arose when President Donald J. Trump fired Rebecca Slaughter, Federal Trade Commissioner, without providing a clear cause for doing so in March of 2025. The Trump administration sent Slaughter an email removing her from the position, effective immediately, pursuant to the President’s Article II authority. According to Slaughter’s brief to the Court, the email explained that her continued service was not aligned with the current administration’s priorities. Thus, the decision to remove Slaughter appears to be based on disagreements over policy rather than for cause. Slaughter sued President Trump and other members of the Federal Trade Commission shortly thereafter, arguing that her removal was unlawful. Just a month later, Mark R. Meador replaced Slaughter in the role of Commissioner.
At the trial court level, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that President Trump’s actions in firing Slaughter were unlawful in its July 17, 2025, order. The district court order reinstated Slaughter to her position and sought to prevent any further interference from the government. However, the Supreme Court granted a stay of that order on September 22, 2025, preventing Slaughter from being reinstated until the litigation is resolved. The Court heard oral arguments on December 8, 2025, and has yet to issue a decision. The case raises the issue of whether the President of the United States has the power to remove independent agency heads without cause. It could have far-reaching implications for both the president’s power to control executive agencies and the separation of powers doctrine.
The History of the Removal Power
The question of whether the president has the authority to remove an officer of the United States who was appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate is inherently intertwined with the separation of powers doctrine. The removal power is separate and distinct from the appointment power, where the president makes appointments subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. On its face, the Constitution is silent on the issue of a removal power. In the early years of our nation, James Madison argued that the executive power of removal could be implied from the vesting clause in Article II, Section I, of the Constitution. Madison was a proponent of giving the vesting clause full effect, which states that “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Others, like Justice Lewis Brandeis, contended that Congress more likely had the authority to delegate the removal power and to place restrictions on it with specific acts of legislation. The issue of removal power has been raised many times before and created important Supreme Court precedents that have stood for almost a century.
Trump v. Slaughter directly challenges the Supreme Court’s opinion in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States. In Humphrey’s Executor, the Court held that executive officers who wield “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” power can be protected from removal by the President with acts of legislation passed by Congress that prohibit removal except for cause as named in the applicable statute. Ironically, the Humphrey’s Executor case presented a strikingly similar situation as is presented in Trump v. Slaughter. Both cases concern the presidential removal of a sitting Federal Trade Commissioner. Signed by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914, the Federal Trade Commission Act provided that a commissioner could be removed only for certain reasons, such as inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance. In Humphrey’s Executor, President Roosevelt removed the acting Federal Trade Commissioner without providing a specific cause. Much like in Slaughter, the removal stemmed from political disagreement between the Commissioner and Roosevelt’s administration. In its opinion, the Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission Act’s for-cause removal requirement, acknowledging that a president’s removal power is not absolute and may be subject to limitations imposed by Congress.
Myers v. United States, a case that came just before Humphrey’s Executor, supports the position that the removal power lies with the President, especially for inferior executive officers. In Myers, the Court issued a detailed opinion that afforded great weight to the executive branch’s power through the vesting clause of Article II. Humphrey’s Executor was a narrow exception to the Myers holding that the power of removal lies solely with the President. More recently, in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court held that a portion of legislation that restricted the removal of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s director violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Dodd-Frank Act was enacted after the 2008 financial crisis to strengthen the nation’s financial system and prevent future crises. Seila Law held that the removal power portion of the Dodd-Frank Act was unconstitutional and severable from the rest of the legislation. In Seila Law, the Court chose not to disturb the Humphrey’s Executor “quasi-judicial” or “quasi-legislative” exception to the removal power, mainly because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exercised executive powers. However, Justice Clarence Thomas noted in his dissent that he would do away with Humphrey’s Executor completely.
Adversarial Arguments on Each Side
Attorneys for President Trump argue in their brief that Humphrey’s Executor should be reconsidered and overturned. They contend that the Federal Trade Commission in 2025 is fundamentally different because it exercises more executive power today than it did in 1935. For example, the Federal Trade Commission now has the power to bring civil enforcement suits, which is an executive power that was not considered in Humphrey’s Executor. Further, they assert that courts do not have the power in equity to restore removed executive officers. The proper remedy would be to order monetary relief, such as salary compensation, if the removal was deemed impermissible. Because of the many actions taken by lower court judges against President Trump’s administration, the brief argues that the Supreme Court should step in to provide more guidance and finality on the issue of the presidential removal power.
In contrast , attorneys for Rebecca Slaughter focus on the fact that the Federal Trade Commission Act is worded exactly as it was in 1935: “Any Commissioner may be removed by the President for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Slaughter’s attorneys contend that Humphrey’s Executor should control and be the Court’s final word. They argue that although Seila Law presented a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, Slaughter is different and should be treated as such. The Federal Trade Commission is controlled by multiple directors, not just one director like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was the agency at issue in Seila Law. Slaughter’s attorneys point to the Federal Trade Commission’s long history which is deeply rooted in the nation’s tradition as support for why Humphrey’s Executor should control.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
Over the past several years, the Supreme Court has overturned several cases that have served as longstanding precedent in various areas of constitutional law. The Court overturned the doctrine of Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimando. Additionally, the Court overturned its stance on abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Given these landmark decisions, overturning an almost century-old case like Humphrey’s Executor does not seem so far-fetched, especially since the Supreme Court has already stayed the lower court’s order and granted certiorari for the case.
A ninety-year-old Supreme Court case is not the only thing that the Slaughter decision will impact. The outcome of this case could affect the public’s perception of the Supreme Court. Polling from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania shows that Americans increasingly distrust the Supreme Court. Trust in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low since 2005, as more than half of Americans who were polled disapprove of the Court today. Data from the 2024 Annenberg poll indicates growing partisan division in how the Court is viewed, with Democrats expressing greater skepticism of the Court than Republicans. The Roberts Court has demonstrated a willingness to address cases like Trump v. Slaughter that raise questions about long-standing precedent. The Court has made headlines for cases like Dobbs and Loper Bright that overturn precedent on major issues. The overturning of high-profile cases might be part of what is affecting the public’s increasing skepticism of the Court. However, the rate at which the Court is overturning prior precedents has actually slowed—even with a six-justice conservative majority. So even though the Court is not overruling precedent cases at a high rate, the cases that are being overruled have major implications and are grabbing the public’s attention. If Trump v. Slaughter overturns Humphrey’s Executor, this would only add to the list of major opinions issued by the Roberts Court that part with stare decisis.
The practical implications of overturning Humphrey’s Executor would give presidents greater power to remove officials in charge of independent agencies. Many of these agencies wield executive power derived from Article II of the Constitution and is vested in the President. Justice Kagan notes in a dissent of the Court’s decision to grant certiorari in Trump v. Slaughter that overturning Humphrey’s Executor would be detrimental to the separation of powers because it authorizes a dangerous transfer of authority from Congress to the President. During oral arguments, D. John Sauer, the Solicitor General of the United States, asserted that the removal restrictions allow agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission to avoid accountability because they do not directly answer to voters. He further argued that over time, Congress has used the Necessary and Proper Clause to strip the President of executive power and transfer it to the leaders of executive agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission. Looking at the case from either perspective, the outcome of the Court’s ruling in Trump v. Slaughter will be impactful.
What is at stake?
The legal issues raised in Trump v. Slaughter will have major implications for executive power and the separation of powers doctrine. Slaughter could be another landmark case that overturns a longstanding precedent. It also raises the question of what role independent agencies should play in our government and how much power they should exercise. Now that oral arguments have already taken place, the Supreme Court will issue its opinion in the case. Will first year-law students be reading a different case on the presidential removal power in their constitutional law courses in 2026? It will not be long before the Court answers that question.
