Trump v. Slaughter

Docket Number: 25-332
Citation: 609/2
Term: October Term 2025
Argued: December 8, 2025
Decided: June 29, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Author: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
Concurring: John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas
Dissenting: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson

AI-Generated Summary

Case Information:

Case Name: Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Slaughter
Docket Number: No. 25–332
Dates: Argued December 8, 2025—Decided June 29, 2026
Lower Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (certiorari before judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia)

Facts of the Case:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consists of five Commissioners, each serving seven-year terms and removable by the President only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office under 15 U.S.C. §41.
In March 2025, President Trump removed Democratic Commissioners Rebecca Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya without asserting statutory cause, stating their continued service was inconsistent with his Administration’s priorities and invoking Article II authority.
Slaughter sued the President and other officials, alleging the removal was ultra vires, violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and violated the Constitution; she sought declaratory and injunctive relief to restore her to office.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Slaughter, holding that Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), carved out an exception to Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), for the FTC, declared the removal ultra vires, and issued a permanent injunction.
A divided Court of Appeals denied a stay pending appeal; this Court stayed the District Court’s order and granted certiorari before judgment.

Legal Issues Presented:

Whether the FTC’s for-cause removal provision violates the separation of powers under the Constitution.
The case involves interpretation of Article II of the Constitution (the Vesting Clause and Take Care Clause).
Main arguments: The Government contended that the President possesses an unrestricted power to remove principal executive officers at will to maintain accountability; Slaughter relied on Humphrey’s Executor and stare decisis, arguing that Congress may insulate certain multimember agencies from at-will removal.

The Court's Decision (Main Opinion):

Author & Type: Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court (joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett; Justice Thomas joined as to all but Part III–B); it is a Majority opinion.
Holding: The FTC’s for-cause removal provision is contrary to the separation of powers; the President may remove FTC Commissioners at will.
Legal Reasoning: The Constitution vests the executive power in a single President, who must remain accountable through a chain of dependence requiring that subordinates be removable at will (citing The Federalist Nos. 70, 72). Historical practice, beginning with the Decision of 1789 and confirmed in Myers, establishes this power. Humphrey’s Executor, which permitted for-cause removal for the FTC on the ground that it exercised quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions, has not withstood the test of time; later cases have limited or undermined it, and the FTC today exercises core executive power (rulemaking, enforcement, and adjudication). All relevant stare decisis factors counsel overruling Humphrey’s Executor. The FTC’s activities fall within the heartland of executive power.
Disposition: Reversed and remanded.

Concurring Opinion(s):

Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. He agreed that the President must be able to remove principal officers exercising executive power but noted that the decision raises questions about Congress’s delegation of legislative and judicial powers to agencies now subject to direct Presidential control.

Dissenting Opinion(s):

Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She argued that Humphrey’s Executor directly controls, reflects a deeply rooted tradition of independent agencies, and is supported by text, history, and precedent. Overruling it disregards stare decisis, reliance interests of Congress and the public, and the political branches’ longstanding judgment that certain agencies require insulation from at-will removal.

Potential Significance:

The decision affirms that officers exercising executive power must be removable at will by the President and overrules Humphrey’s Executor, limiting the ability of Congress to create independent agencies insulated from direct Presidential control. It leaves open questions concerning certain historical entities (such as the Federal Reserve) and non-Article III courts.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Key terms: Presidential Removal Power, Federal Trade Commission, Separation Of Powers