Recommended Free Tools
President Donald Trump removed Democratic Federal Trade Commission commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025. On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the FTC’s statutory protection against removal without cause violated the separation of powers, reversing the judgment that had protected Slaughter in office. The case is no longer a pending move to fire commissioners; it has become a major ruling on presidential control of an independent agency.
What happened to Slaughter and Bedoya
Trump told Slaughter and Bedoya that their continued service was inconsistent with his administration’s priorities and invoked his authority under Article II of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s opinion says he did not accuse either commissioner of inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance—the grounds for removal specified in the FTC statute at the time.
Slaughter sued, seeking relief that would restore her to office. The district court ruled in her favor under the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor and barred interference with her duties. In September 2025, the Supreme Court stayed that order and agreed to hear Slaughter’s case before the appeals court had ruled. Bedoya initially joined the suit, but resigned after the litigation began; the Court dismissed his claims as moot. The case before the justices therefore concerned Slaughter’s claims.
The Supreme Court’s official docket records the stay and grant of review: Trump v. Slaughter docket.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
What the Supreme Court decided
On June 29, 2026, the Court held that the FTC’s for-cause removal provision was contrary to the separation of powers. It reversed the district court’s judgment and sent the case back for further proceedings. The Court said the President must be able to remove executive officers who exercise executive power. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the Court: “If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it.”
The ruling rejects the statutory protection that had limited removal of FTC commissioners to specified grounds. It does not establish what steps the FTC or the parties took after the case was remanded; those subsequent developments are not addressed here.
Why the case mattered
The dispute tested two competing views of how much independence Congress can give an agency whose officials exercise executive authority.
The majority’s view: presidential accountability
The majority reasoned that the President needs authority to remove executive officers who carry out executive power. On this view, insulating FTC commissioners from removal except for cause interfered with the President’s constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
The dissent’s view: agency independence
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The dissent defended Humphrey’s Executor and warned about the consequences of the majority’s approach for agency independence. The disagreement was therefore not about whether Trump had cited statutory misconduct; it was about whether Congress could constitutionally restrict the President’s removal power in this way.
What the ruling means for FTC commissioner tenure
The FTC statute described in the Court’s opinion provides for five commissioners serving seven-year terms, with removal limited to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Those figures describe the statutory framework discussed by the Court; they are not a guarantee of tenure after the Court invalidated the for-cause protection. The opinion is the Supreme Court’s official preliminary print and is marked subject to formal revision before publication in the bound volume: Trump v. Slaughter opinion.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the Court divided
The decision was 6–3. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Clarence Thomas joined except as to Part III-B. Justice Sotomayor’s dissent was joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
