← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Slaughter v. Trump (Slaughter FTC Case)

No. 1:25-cv-00909 District · Decided Decided
Court
D.D.C.
dcd
Judge
Loren L. AliKhan 46
Decided
Jul 17, 2025
Filed
Mar 27, 2025
Judge (CL)
Loren L. AliKhan 46
Filed (CL)
Mar 27, 2025
CL Status
terminated

Case Overview

FTC Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya sued the Trump administration following President Trump's purported firing of them from the FTC.


Outcome History (2)

  1. Jul 17, 2025 District
    Dismissed Neutral Final

    Alvaro Bedoya's claims dismissed without prejudice; Rebecca Slaughter's Motion for Summary Judgment granted; Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment denied.

  2. Jul 24, 2025 District
    Stay denied Neutral

    Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was denied.

Federal Court TMR-530a6338 Firing of FTC Commissioners May 18, 2026

Case Analysis

Facts

FTC Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya were purportedly fired by President Trump in early 2025. They sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing the President cannot remove independent agency commissioners except for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" under the FTC Act. A protection upheld by the Supreme Court in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). The district court sided with the commissioners. The government appealed and simultaneously sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the President of the United States may remove a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, notwithstanding a statutory provision limiting removal to cause, in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Humphrey's Executor, Seila Law, and Collins.

Rule

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), upheld for-cause removal protections for commissioners of the FTC as a multi-member independent regulatory commission, distinguishing purely executive officers from quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial officers. Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 591 U.S. 197 (2020), narrowed Humphrey's Executor but explicitly left intact the holding that multi-member commissions with bipartisan composition and adjudicative functions may constitutionally retain for-cause removal protections. The President retains removal power over principal officers of the United States but Congress may cabin that power for officers exercising quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions.

Analysis

Judge Alikhan in the D.D.C. Granted summary judgment for Slaughter, finding that under existing precedent the firing was unlawful. Humphrey's Executor remains good law, and the FTC Act's for-cause removal protections apply.

Conclusion

Pending decision. The case will either reaffirm Humphrey's Executor, preserving ninety years of independent agency structure, or overrule it, giving the President authority to fire the heads of every independent regulatory commission at will. This is the companion case to Cook v. Trump (Federal Reserve removal power).

Notes

SCOTUS docket. Not yet on CourtListener

Overview

In 1935 the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could shield independent-agency officials from at-will firing. Meaning the president can't remove the FTC chair or the NLRB chair just because he wants to. Trump fired FTC Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025 without cause, openly defying that precedent (Humphrey's Executor), and the Supreme Court took the case. At December 2025 oral argument every signal pointed toward overruling Humphrey's, which would give every future president the power to fire the leadership of the Federal Reserve, the NLRB, and every independent regulatory body on a whim.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support