The U.S. Supreme Court handed former President Donald Trump a major legal and political victory, ruling that he has the authority to remove Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat appointed by President Joe Biden. The decision marks the latest development in a months-long legal battle over presidential control of independent regulatory agencies. Since March, Trump had sought to dismiss Slaughter, citing his authority as president to shape executive and independent government bodies according to his priorities. The case has drawn national attention because it challenges long-established protections for commissioners on independent agencies, raising fundamental questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and regulatory bodies created by Congress. Slaughter’s dismissal had been temporarily blocked by Chief Justice John Roberts, but the Supreme Court’s latest 6-3 decision now clears the way for Trump to exercise his removal power. Legal scholars note that the decision could have far-reaching consequences, not only for the FTC but for other independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Federal Communications Commission, which historically have enjoyed limited presidential control.

Rebecca Slaughter’s seven-year term at the FTC, which was scheduled to run until 2029, made her the last Democratic appointee on the commission following the departure of other members. Trump had dismissed Slaughter alongside fellow commissioner Alvaro Bedoya, although Bedoya later dropped his legal challenge. Slaughter, however, pursued litigation to remain in office, arguing that the president lacked authority to remove her without cause. In July, a federal judge sided with Slaughter, citing the landmark 1935 Supreme Court ruling in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which held that commissioners of certain independent regulatory agencies could only be removed for misconduct or neglect of duty. The ruling limited presidential authority over agencies designed to operate independently of executive influence. Trump’s Justice Department countered by asserting that the president must retain the ability to remove commissioners at will, warning that limiting this authority undermines the executive branch’s ability to enforce law and policy effectively. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that any judicial encroachment on executive removal power constitutes irreparable harm, as transferring control to officers beyond the president’s authority weakens the fundamental separation of powers.

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling signals a potential reshaping of longstanding precedent. By siding with the Trump administration, the conservative majority appeared poised to either overturn or substantially narrow the scope of the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor decision. The justices’ ruling underscores the Court’s growing willingness to enhance presidential control over independent agencies, a legal trend that has gained momentum over recent years. This decision reflects broader ideological divides within the Court regarding executive power, administrative authority, and the limits imposed by statutes creating independent regulatory agencies. Critics argue that granting presidents unchecked authority to remove commissioners could politicize institutions meant to function autonomously, potentially undermining regulatory consistency and public trust. Supporters, however, contend that the decision restores accountability to agencies that wield significant power over American businesses and consumers, asserting that elected leaders should have the final say in policy execution. Legal experts expect the Court to soon hear oral arguments to clarify whether presidents may dismiss FTC commissioners without cause, a ruling that could establish precedent for other federal agencies and future administrations.

The decision comes amid a broader context of the Supreme Court asserting itself in major regulatory and policy disputes. Last week, the Court delivered a significant blow to California’s climate policies, ruling 7-2 in favor of energy producers challenging the state’s extreme green energy mandates. The case involved California’s requirements that automakers sell increasing percentages of electric vehicles and limit greenhouse gas emissions in new vehicles, as part of Governor Gavin Newsom’s push toward carbon neutrality by 2035. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that government agencies cannot impose stringent regulations on businesses while simultaneously attempting to evade judicial scrutiny. The Court found that fuel producers had established Article III standing, allowing them to pursue legal challenges against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Kavanaugh noted that the EPA had repeatedly altered its legal arguments regarding California’s authority under the Clean Air Act, weakening its defense and highlighting inconsistencies in federal oversight. This ruling reinforced the judiciary’s willingness to check what it sees as regulatory overreach, particularly in areas where federal and state authority intersect.

Trump’s victory over Slaughter’s reinstatement and the Court’s decision on California energy regulations share a common theme: bolstering executive and corporate protections against perceived overreach by independent agencies or state-level mandates. In the FTC case, the decision enables the president to assert authority over commissioners who might oppose administration priorities, potentially reshaping the agency’s approach to antitrust enforcement, consumer protection, and market oversight. The California ruling similarly curtailed state-imposed mandates, preventing aggressive green energy regulations from proceeding without adequate federal approval. For the Trump administration and allied conservatives, these decisions represent key wins in limiting regulatory power that could impede market freedom and executive prerogatives. Critics, including Democratic policymakers and environmental advocates, argue that weakening independent agencies and state-level mandates jeopardizes protections for consumers, the environment, and public accountability. The contrasting perspectives highlight the ideological divide over the proper scope of government power, the role of independent oversight, and the balance between elected officials and bureaucratic institutions.

Stakeholders across business, government, and the legal community have reacted strongly to both rulings. Chet Thompson, president and CEO of American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, hailed the California decision as a victory, noting that Congress never granted California special authority to mandate electric vehicles or ban gas-powered cars. Similarly, the Trump administration praised the FTC ruling as restoring essential executive authority, ensuring the president can shape policy through appointments aligned with administration goals. Legal analysts suggest that the two cases could influence future disputes over agency independence, presidential removal power, and state versus federal regulatory authority. Beyond immediate legal consequences, the rulings underscore how the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is reshaping institutional boundaries, potentially redefining the balance of power among the executive branch, Congress, independent agencies, and state governments. As the Court prepares to hear further arguments regarding FTC commissioner removal, the nation watches closely, aware that these decisions may have long-term implications for governance, regulatory oversight, and the interplay between law and politics in the United States.