The Supreme Court may be on the verge of delivering President Donald Trump one of the most consequential legal victories of his second term — a ruling that could fundamentally reshape the balance of power between the presidency and Washington’s sprawling administrative state.

On Tuesday, the justices heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a case that goes directly to the heart of executive authority. At issue is a deceptively simple question with enormous implications:

Can the president fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause?

Based on the tone, substance, and direction of the Court’s questioning, the answer may soon be yes — and that would mark a dramatic break from nearly a century of precedent shielding so-called “independent agencies” from meaningful presidential oversight.

A Case About Accountability — Not Just One FTC Seat

The dispute stems from President Trump’s decision to remove Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic FTC commissioner whose term was not set to expire until 2029. Trump dismissed Slaughter without providing a formal explanation, asserting that members of executive agencies ultimately serve at the pleasure of the president elected by the American people.

Slaughter immediately sued, arguing that her removal violated both federal statute and long-standing Supreme Court precedent — most notably Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), a landmark decision that limited a president’s ability to remove officials from independent regulatory commissions.

That ruling has served for decades as the legal foundation protecting agency officials from dismissal unless the president can demonstrate “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Trump’s administration argues that precedent is outdated, unconstitutional, and incompatible with democratic accountability.

Justices Appear Skeptical of “Independent” Agencies

During oral arguments, several justices — particularly from the Court’s conservative wing — raised pointed questions about whether Congress can truly insulate executive officers from presidential control without violating the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh both questioned the logic of allowing agencies that exercise significant executive power to operate largely beyond the reach of the president.

“If these agencies are exercising executive authority,” one justice asked, “why shouldn’t the president — who is constitutionally vested with that power — have the final say over who runs them?”

Justice Kavanaugh, in particular, has long expressed skepticism toward the administrative state, having previously written that independent agencies represent a “fourth branch of government” unaccountable to voters.

Those concerns appeared front and center during Tuesday’s arguments.

A Potential End to Humphrey’s Executor?

While the Court is unlikely to formally overturn Humphrey’s Executor outright, legal analysts say it may effectively gut the decision by narrowing its scope or carving out exceptions that restore meaningful presidential removal authority.

If that happens, the ripple effects would be enormous.

Independent agencies like the FTC, SEC, FCC, and NLRB wield vast regulatory power affecting everything from business practices to labor markets to consumer protection. Yet their leaders are often insulated from removal, even when their policies clash directly with the agenda voters endorsed at the ballot box.

A ruling in Trump’s favor would reassert a basic constitutional principle: executive power belongs to the executive.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Trump

Supporters of the administration argue that this case isn’t about punishing one commissioner or settling political scores — it’s about restoring democratic accountability.

For decades, unelected regulators have exercised sweeping authority with minimal oversight, often advancing ideological agendas regardless of who occupies the White House.

“If the president can’t remove agency heads who actively undermine his policies,” one constitutional scholar noted, “then elections become largely symbolic.”

A ruling affirming removal power would ensure that agencies reflect the priorities of the elected government — not entrenched bureaucracies.

Slaughter’s Argument — And Its Weakness

Slaughter’s legal team maintains that her firing violates the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, which explicitly limits presidential removal authority. They argue that Congress intentionally designed the FTC to operate independently to prevent political interference.

But critics counter that Congress cannot override the Constitution by statute — and that the Founders never envisioned executive officials immune from presidential control.

Several justices appeared receptive to that argument, suggesting Congress may have overstepped its authority by creating agencies that answer to no one voters can hold accountable.

A Broader War on the Administrative State

Trump v. Slaughter fits squarely into a broader judicial trend in which the Supreme Court has steadily chipped away at the administrative state.

Recent decisions have:

• Limited agency deference to their own interpretations of law
• Reinforced the nondelegation doctrine
• Strengthened the separation of powers

This case could represent the next major step — and possibly the most consequential one yet.

What Happens Next

The Court is expected to issue its decision later this term. If the administration prevails, presidents — not just Trump — would regain authority over agencies that have long operated autonomously.

That would mark a historic shift in how Washington functions.

For Trump, it would be both a legal and political victory — validating his long-held argument that unelected bureaucrats have accumulated far too much power.

For the country, it could signal the beginning of a long-overdue recalibration of who actually governs.

One thing is clear: the Supreme Court is no longer content to simply accept the administrative state as untouchable.

And if Tuesday’s arguments are any indication, the era of “independent” agencies may soon look very different.